Replies to post #68611 on Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[Yolo]

Nevertheless, it does not appear that the underlying district court proceedings originated with the filing of a complaint and a service of process. Instead, it appears the district court action began with the filing of a motion to appoint a custodian. While it appears that the motion was served, it does not appear that any person or entity was served with process in accordance with NRAP 4 in this matter. It also does not appear that service of process is required for a stockholder to file a motion to appoint a custodian. See NRS 78.347. Accordingly, it is not clear if service of process was necessary to become a party in context of this appeal.

It definitely seems like an open question of what the legal requirement is to appeal. I haven't read the briefs in months, but I think there was an argument explaining who should have standing in this context.

But my takeaway isn't about who has standing and who doesn't, my takeaway was that the underlying proceeding was improper to begin with.

Nevertheless, it does not appear that the underlying district court proceedings originated with the filing of a complaint and a service of process.

That's crucial, from my perspective. Sharp tried to piggyback on the custodianship motion, when he should have used his authority as custodian to initiate a new lawsuit like he did with GVSI and SRNW.

Looking at it only in terms of standing to appeal, I think there is a valid point that Calasse was not a proper party and therefore may lack standing under a strict reading of 3A. However, this raises the issue of whether the district court even had jurisdiction in the first place, which gives the NVSC authority to review the decision even if Calasse lacks standing. (It's confusing but basically the NVSC needs authority to review, and while it lacks authority under 3A, it has original jurisdiction. Thus, winning the standing issue does not dismiss the appeal)

As I've mentioned repeatedly, in Callie v. Bowling the NVSC reversed and remanded a district court decision despite the appellant not being a named party (and therefore lacking standing under 3A). The NVSC didn't even get into that, the NVSC only looked at whether the district court had jurisdiction and found that it did not. I'm expecting something similar here, but my interest is fading the longer it drags out.

[BigMoneyChalupa]

Calasse was involved in a fraud. What don't you get about that? The Supreme Court does not look favorably upon a fraud. They do not look favorably upon bad actors who abandon shareholders and provide zero value to them in the process. And given the nature of the events which unfolded in 2013, the Supreme Court of Nevada will see right through the BS, and come up with the proper ruling for shareholders, that is in the best interest.

Ever heard of fiduciary duty? Who do you think has more favor with the courts? Someone who abandoned their duty to shareholders, or someone who spent their own money to reinstate the corporation and do everything by the book, for the benefit of shareholders?

It is hilarious to me that very few seem to consider the fact that Calasse was involved in a pump and dump scheme, was caught lying and pumping GOFF stock, and couldn't even prove a receipt for his own shares. To suggest that the Supreme Court of Nevada would rule in favor of such a character, who has provided absolutely nothing of value to shareholders and to the corporation, is a complete fallacy.

The point is this: if you violate securities laws and are involved with numerous unscrupulous firms, while dumping tens of millions of dollars of stock into the open market without a registration statement, and then you abandoned shareholders after these events unfolded, without ever proving that you owned the shares in the first place, what makes you think that the Supreme Court of Nevada would look upon these events as something that they should rule in favor of?