Net Savings Link Inc (PK)【NSAV】株式ニュース

Hopefully my last. Reading more I see that it was argued that Tilton didn't know about the "deal":
12. He asserts that Complaint is flawed because Tilton was (1) not aware of any contract between former NSAV CEO Steven Baritz;...
But, and I'm not going to read everything as closely as you might have, if the "deal" (contract?) never happened, as you said, why was it mentioned that Tilton didn't know of the "contract" and not simply argued that the "deal" never happened as you say? (That's just a question you might know the answer to is all.)

Also, you said this:
"Grover is the snake here. JT just ignored the snake."
I don't agree as shown below Tilton most certainly did not ignore Grover so there must have been another reason for the default judgment.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2021cv05054/407373/211/
Defendants CHIF, NSAV, and Tilton filed their Answer on February 11, 2022. [36]. The parties worked towards settling the matter but were unsuccessful. [58]; [66]; [80]; [82]. The parties moved forward with the case, but counsel for Defendants NSAV, CHIF, the Wilton Parties, and Tilton filed motions to withdraw from the case in April and May 2023. [87]; [88]; [100]; [101]. The Court granted defense counsel’s motions to withdraw and gave all defendants until August 17, 2023 to find replacement counsel. [98]; [108]. At a status hearing on September 19, 2023, the Court noted that none of the defendants had retained counsel and found that the Corporate Defendants were in default in terms of responding to discovery. [113]. As Tilton was proceeding pro se, the Court ordered Grover to produce discovery requests directly to Tilton and directed Tilton to respond to discovery by October 3, 2023. Id. On October 10, 2023, after Tilton’s discovery deadline passed, the Court granted in part Grover’s motion to compel discovery by ordering that Tilton “ provide response[s] to interrogatories without objections (those are waived) by 10/17/23” and finding that “[a]ll requests to 1 The claims against the Corporate Defendants include specific performance (Ct. I), b reach of contract (Cts. II–III), breach of implied covenant of good fair and fair dealing (Ct. IV), and accounting (Ct. XVI). The claims against Tilton, as well as some or all the Corporate Defendants, are unjust enrichment (Ct. V), tortious interference (Cts. VI–VII), promissory estoppel (Ct. VIII), fraud (Ct. IX), negligent misrepresentation (Ct. X), Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Ct. XI), Illinois Securities Law of 1953 (Cts. XII–XIII), Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Ct. XIV), and civil conspiracy (Ct. XV).
4 admit are deemed admitted.” [126]. The Court granted Tilton’s request for additional time to produce documents until October 20, 2023, and later granted further extension until October 30, 2023. Id.; [131]. On December 5, 2023, the Court granted Grover’s motion for default against the Corporate Defendants as they had not been represented for nearly six months and largely failed to participate in discovery. [146].2 On January 31, 2024, Grover moved for summary judgment against Tilton. [152]. Tilton filed three separate responses [154–155, 157]. Grover has moved to strike the two responses filed by Tilton after his response deadline. [158]. Long after the motion was briefed and following prompting by the Court, Grover’s counsel belatedly complied with Local Rule 56.2’s requirement of providing Tilton, as an unrepresented party, the Northern District’s notice explaining the summary judgment process. [196]; [199];see Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281, 285 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment). Thus, the Court permitted Tilton, who as of August 15, 2024 was represented by counsel, to file a supplement to his summary judgment briefing. [202]; [ 207]. Tilton’s supplement [207] raises several objections based in the federal rules of civil discovery to the nature and number of Plaintiff’s requests to admit. Had Tilton been represented by counsel, he would have objected to them as burdensome, since there were 222 of them, and although he is not specific, he indicates that several of 2 Defendant NSAV has recently obtained counsel and moved to vacate the default judgment. [203].
5 them are overly vague or call for legal conclusions. Tilton’s supplement then asserts that the Complaint “contains genuine issues of law.” [207] ¶ 12. He asserts that Complaint is flawed because Tilton was (1) not aware of any contract between former NSAV CEO Steven Baritz; (2) Plaintiff did not name Baritz as a defendant; (3) Plaintiff did not raise any concerns regarding his alleged employment status with Tilton; and (4) Plaintiff did not identify the parties to the conspiracy in alleging a civil conspiracy.3Id. ¶¶ 12–16.ANALYSIS As a preliminary matter,Grover moves to strike Tilton’s additional responses to his motion for summary judgment. [158]. Tilton timely filed a response to Grover’s motion for summary judgment, pro se, on February 21, 2024. [154]. A day before Grover’s reply was due, Tilton filed an additional response, and filed a second additional response two weeks later. [155]; [157]. The Court grants the motion to strike the additional responses in part and denies it in part. The Court strikes ¶ 10 of Tilton’s response dated February 21, 2024 [154], because it discloses confidential settlement information.[/color] See Fed. R. Evid. 408. The Court denies Grover’s request for sanctions. In light of Tilton’s pro se status,the Court otherwise allows Tilton’s filings to stand and considers them in response. Even considering Tilton’s filings, including the recent supplement filed with the assistance of counsel, Tilton has failed to respond to Grover’s statement of material facts...
It just seems to me that Tilton, for awhile, tried his best to fight the lawsuit, but eventually just gave up.

JMOs.