Replies to post #6782 on FuboTV Inc (FUBO)

[dragon slayer]

What’s a pump and dump Fubo that Disney owns and Edgar Bronfman is the executive chairman of. Leff the private equity investor just joined fubo’s board. What am I missing?

[RandomWalk44]

Are you new at this? Where was the pump when Credit Suisse invested $20 million in early July?

An OTC pump and dump would email blast the news of a $20 million from an A-list investment bank to every OTC rag including this site. They buried the news in a 8K before a holiday weekend. They aren't pumping anything.

and Credit Suisse, Disney, Viacom and Scripps don't invest in pump and dumps. You got this one wrong. What's your deal?


https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1484769/000149315220012516/form8-k.htm

Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities.

On July 2, 2020, FaceBank Group, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company” or “FaceBank”), entered into a Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Credit Suisse Capital LLC (the “Investor”), pursuant to which the Company sold 2,162,163 shares (the “Purchased Shares”) of the Company’s common stock at a purchase price of $9.25 per share (the “Purchase Price”), for an aggregate purchase price of $20,000,007.75. There were no underwriting discounts or commissions.

[RandomWalk44]

Found it! - this lawsuit? 2 Year Old Case and Dismissed Twice and Stricken

Disclosure from the 10-K, Page 19
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1484769/000149315220010180/form10-k.htm#a_006

On August 27, 2018, plaintiff, Scott Meide, filed a pro se (unrepresented by counsel) complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, against Pulse Evolution Corporation, now a majority-owned subsidiary of FaceBank, naming its former officers among others as defendants. FaceBank’s position is that the pro se Complaint is defamatory, without merit in fact or law and represents an extortive attempt to coerce payment under threat of reputational harm. FaceBank’s subsidiaries and affiliates filed a motion to dismiss on September 25, 2018. On July 24, 2019, all counts of the complaint were dismissed in favor of FaceBank’s subsidiaries and affiliates. Mr. Meide was afforded the opportunity to file an amended complaint for a portion of his claims, and such amendment was filed on September 24, 2019. On October 6, 2019, Judge Marcia Morales Howard ordered Mr. Meide’s amended complaint stricken, describing the filing as insufficient and having failed to identify facts necessary to support its allegations, and offering Mr. Meide “one final opportunity to properly state his claims” with an amended complaint. Mr. Meide’s third attempt to submit a sufficient complaint was filed on November 1, 2019. On November 22, 2019 FaceBank’s subsidiaries and affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On December 31, 2019 Mr. Meide filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss. On January 9, 2020, the court struck Mr. Meide’s opposition and on February 3, 2020 issued an order requiring Mr. Meide to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Mr. Meide was given until March 6, 2020 to respond to the motions to dismiss filed by FaceBank’s subsidiaries and affiliates. Mr. Meide’s apparent final opportunity to oppose the defendant’s motions to dismiss was filed on March 2, 2020. FaceBank believes Mr. Meide’s most recent filing is a near carbon copy of prior arguments and filings that have either been dismissed or were stricken and that Mr. Meide’s final amended complaint will be dismissed. FaceBank plans to the ask the court for an award of sanctions and attorney fees in connection with Mr. Meide’s filing of a frivolous lawsuit.