Replies to post #93654 on Pacific Gold Corp fka PCFG

[nagoya1]

Thanks for the info. The counter-suit looks better than the actual suit, may'be PCFG makes a few dollars from this event. That would be too funny.imo
Go PCFG

[BBalls-N-CowTown]

Many many thanks Blue Dog, looks like they got that circle jerk rigged up pretty good.

[Phred6]

Thanks BD. Great reading. They bought the warrants for $2,575.00. The defense is getting more aggresive including Yorkville in it's counterclaim. It would be nice to see them screwed as well. I can see why you continue to invest in PCFG. Let's hope the judge makes the plantiffs post a 1.2 million bond. \V/_

[BBalls-N-CowTown]

I know your really busy BD, my next question is just for fun, I don't really expect you to answer, but go ahead if there is any enjoyment in thinking or speculating about it.

My question is, If we won this, including the case against Yorkville, is there any chance of re-imbusement of costs and damages times three (triple damages), and maybe against both of them? That would be a really cool outcome.

[blue dog]

FYI, no entries to docket since June 15. PCFG got a sumnmons of YA Global et al. on June 14 for the counterclaims, but we still do not know when/whether PCFG has served that summons on the YA Global parties. The obligation of the YA Global parties to respond to the counterclaims is triggered by PCFG's service of the summons on them, not by the date that the court issued the summons.

As shown on the docket, the court has scheduled (rescheduled, actually) the initial conference for July 26. Presumably, YA Global will have at least filed an appearance by then. The deadline to file their answer to the counterclaims will hinge on the date of service.

I have calendared for me to check PACER again next Saturday morning (July 21) to see what's up at that time. Unfortunately, I do not think that the district-court PACER system allows non-parties to request realtime notic of filings, so I need to check back periodically to see if anything has come in. (The appellate PACER system allows non-parties to do this, which is great but irrelevant here.)

GL

[blue dog]

No change in BLACK MOUNTAIN EQUITIES v. PACIFIC GOLD CORP, as of early Saturday morning:



That means that YA Global has not yet filed either (a) an answer to the counterclaim, or (b) an appearance by its counsel. We do not know when the answer would be due, however, because we do not know whether or when PCFG served YA Global. (PCFG has months to do this under the rules, but it seems unlikely that PCFG would delay that.) In any event, the initial conference is July 26, so presumably YA Global will have shown up by then.

GL (P.S. I am out of the office this week, and I am not sure about internet access.)

[Lowjack]

http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFG/PCFG%20Doc%20001%20Initial%20Compl.pdf

17. On February 22, 2012, BME made a cashless exercise of its warrants, properly
delivering its Exercise Notice to PGC. Pursuant to the Exercise Notice, BME was entitled to
receive at least 44,509,090 shares ofPGC common stock, based on the adjusted exercise price
of$0.0099.


Now read section 2.
http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFG/PCFG%20Doc%20014-1.pdf



:-):-):-D

You can't exercise warrants if you don't bring the cash with you!!! This will go in PCFG's favor.

Unless I am mistaken public filings are notification; correct!

[blue dog]

Looks like BME's lawyers also will represent YAG: http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFGvBME.html

Both BME and YAG filed answers, but I have not reviewed and am out of town until the weekend.
GL

Sorry for the delay: no change in docket since June 15.

Couple things:

1. A subset of the docket is available at http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFGvBME.html ; if anyone wants documents not listed, please feel free to let me know.

2. I am not your lawyer unless we have a written engagement letter, signed by both of us.

3. I have not had a chance to review the documents. Too busy. I am sorry about that. One thing to keep in mind as you read them is that you (like the judge) must distinguish between advocacy and accuracy. In other words, reading just one side's papers may sound very convincing. By the same token, reading the other side's papers may sound equally convincing. But only one side is going to win on any given issue.

I still look forward to taking a look at these myself, and I have not checked each link. Let me know if there are any technical problems; let your lawyer know if you have any legal questions.
GL

[blue dog]

Only a minor change in BME v. PCFG: new judge.

This probably means nothing, other than that we have a new judge. The probable reason is that the change was made to even out the schedules of the judges on the court. Judge McNulty (i.e., the new guy) was just confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 16, 2012. His bio on fjc.gov is
* Born 1954 in Elizabeth, NJ

Education:
* Yale University, B.A., 1976
* New York University School of Law, J.D., 1983

Professional Career:
* Law clerk, Hon. Frederick B. Lacey, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 1983-1984
* Private practice, New York City, 1984-1987
* Assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1987-1998; deputy chief, Criminal Division, 1992-1995; chief, Appeals Division, 1995-1998
* Private practice, Newark, New Jersey, 1998-2012

Couple things:

1. A subset of the docket is available at http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFGvBME.html ; if anyone wants documents not listed, please feel free to let me know.

2. I am not your lawyer unless we have a written engagement letter, signed by both of us.

3. I have not had a chance to review the documents. Too busy. I am sorry about that. One thing to keep in mind as you read them is that you (like the judge) must distinguish between advocacy and accuracy. In other words, reading just one side's papers may sound very convincing. By the same token, reading the other side's papers may sound equally convincing. But only one side is going to win on any given issue.

I still look forward to taking a look at these myself, and I have not checked each link. Let me know if there are any technical problems; let your lawyer know if you have any legal questions.
GL

[blue dog]

BME Litigation update: a few changes since last update.

I am guessing settlement (or further extension of YAG's answer) by October 29, 2012.

Couple things:

1. A subset of the docket is available at http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFGvBME.html ; if anyone wants documents not listed, please feel free to let me know.

2. I am not your lawyer unless we have a written engagement letter, signed by both of us.

3. I have not had a chance to review the documents. Too busy. I am sorry about that. One thing to keep in mind as you read them is that you (like the judge) must distinguish between advocacy and accuracy. In other words, reading just one side's papers may sound very convincing. By the same token, reading the other side's papers may sound equally convincing. But only one side is going to win on any given issue.

I still look forward to taking a look at these myself, and I have not checked each link. Let me know if there are any technical problems; let your lawyer know if you have any legal questions.

GL & go $PCFG

[blue dog]

BME Litigation Update

The judge's decision denying BME's motion for a preliminary injunction (link below) is good reading for anyone who wants to understand the issues here. Looks like all this litigation is the result of careless drafting...

Unfortunately, I am not aware of a way to get the trial-court PACER system to notify me when a new item is placed on the on the docket. So the best that I can do is to check PACER periodically. Sorry that I missed the "scoop" on the decision's coming out on November 27, but I am glad that PCFG filed its 8-K on the decision on November 30. So, to be clear, I make no promises of timely updates.

Couple things:

1. The docket (including links to a subset of the filed documents) is available at http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFGvBME.html ; if anyone wants documents not linked, please feel free to let me know.

2. I am not your lawyer unless we have a written engagement letter, signed by both of us.

3. I have not had a chance to review the documents. Too busy, plus this really is not my area of law. I am sorry about that. One thing to keep in mind as you read them is that you (like the judge) must distinguish between advocacy and accuracy. In other words, reading just one side's papers may sound very convincing. By the same token, reading the other side's papers may sound equally convincing. But only one side is going to win on any given issue.

I still look forward to taking a look at these myself, and I have not checked each link. Let me know if there are any technical problems; let your lawyer know if you have any legal questions.