Major Profits
4日前
Any chance things have now gone far beyond the judgment and possibility of bankruptcy? I mean, why isn't the issue of possible fraud not being discussed or taken into consideration? Imo, even if Vik settled there would still be issue of possible fraud looming over the company and those in charge and/or those formerly in charge. Or do you think the possible fraud issue would simply disappear if a settlement is reached? I don't.
Here's a couple of the latest tweets from Vik:
Vik Grover
@vikpgrover
No desire anymore to fix $NSAV shell it's radioactive w alleged fraud and ? able acctng, we will bring $HMLA current do 15c211 and revive crypto business in the vehicle if it makes sense, NSAV receiver should pursue mgt cronied and Chinese IMO.
12:27 PM · Nov 22, 2024
Vik Grover
@vikpgrover
I"ve spoken w programmer of $NSAV white label HollaEx platform and don't believe we need any cooperation f convicted felon Mike Osborn or cronies Knoll Simon Nguyen Tilton to takeover the assets, I may sue them all for $HMLA breach / RICO given the narrative and actions.
12:35 PM · Nov 22, 2024
And these from the receiver's report:
In addition to his personal review, the common conclusion is that the $11 billion valuation is not based upon any actual market, and—with the exception of the AWH principal—all have indicated that the tokens themselves have red flags suggesting the possibility of fraud.
...The only verifiable asset that the Temporary Receiver has been able to find is $43 in an NSAV business checking account.
..but the financial information in the Q2 Report is so unreliable and potentially fictitious that any issuance of shares would create a substantial risk of violations of federal and state securities laws.7 Although suspending current trading in NSAV is outside the authority of the Temporary Receiver, he will serve a copy of this publicly filed Initial Report on OTC Markets, Pacific, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
...7 Whether any of the prior acts of NSAV, Tilton, Silverbear, or others constitute securities fraud or other violations of the securities laws of any jurisdiction, is beyond the scope of this Initial Report.
So don't you think the possibility of FRAUD might be getting looked into and, if so, then, I would think, the judgment and/or bankruptcy issue isn't the only thing to be thinking about. Bearing that in mind, I decided to ask "Google U" this question: "Can a CEO of a firm which has been found to have engaged in fraud be sued in a civil court for damages?", and got this answer:
From AI:
Search Labs | AI Overview
Yes, a CEO of a firm found to have engaged in fraud can be sued in a civil court for damages, as they can be held personally liable for their actions, especially if they were directly involved in or knowingly allowed the fraudulent activities to occur within the company; this is particularly true if the CEO's actions contributed significantly to the fraudulent conduct.
Key points to consider:
Direct involvement:
Courts will look at whether the CEO actively participated in the fraudulent acts or had knowledge of them and failed to take reasonable steps to stop them.
Corporate veil piercing:
In certain situations, where the CEO's actions were egregious or there was a significant commingling of personal and corporate funds, a court might "pierce the corporate veil" and hold the CEO personally liable for the company's debts and fraudulent acts.
Shareholder derivative lawsuits:
Shareholders can sue a CEO on behalf of the company if they believe the CEO's actions caused harm to the company through fraudulent activity.Perhaps this person is "in the know" about how far things have already progressed?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175446295
Time will tell.
GLTS
$NSAV
Major Profits
6日前
"...They could have went with 400 Million, and Still blew the PPS UP $. Just a scenario... 11 B , WHy?"
And earlier post:
There must be a formula..
Okay, if I was to venture a guess, based on what I've read, the "why" could be that they chose that number (11 B instead of 400 Million) so as to get some people to believe that number is real and that they have a "formula", like you apparently believe (seems to have worked, huh? ) .
But why guess? How about the next time you are online with them you ask them what their "formula" actually is and get back here with their reply (if they'll tell you that is because, well, maybe it's like the Jack In The Box or McDonald's "Secret Sauce" or KFCs original recipe and they want it to remain a mystery). But if they reveal it, please do post here what it is and, also, don't forget to tell the receiver, the court and any of the agencies the receiver sent his report to so they are aware of it also.
TIA
GLTS
P.S. One more thing. Is it true that those who bought tokens can't sell them back? Let me know. But, if that's true, then some of this would make sense because it might mean that you didn't buy any of them yourself. I mean, if you did, and found out that you couldn't sell them back, you might be really pissed off now (and "Bearish") instead of so defensive (and "Bullish"). Oh, IMO! But, then again, there's that "all important" (to some!) share price to care about, huh?
$NSAV
Major Profits
6日前
"BS!" So what makes you say that? I'm just wondering as I've seen some of the SP posted videos and, afaic, it looks like some very questionable things have been going on behind the scenes so I'm thinking that what he said is true (one can hope, right?) Add these from the receivers report:
In addition to his personal review, the common conclusion is that the $11 billion valuation is not based upon any actual market, and—with the exception of the AWH principal—all have indicated that the tokens themselves have red flags suggesting the possibility of fraud.
The only verifiable asset that the Temporary Receiver has been able to find is $43 in an NSAV business checking account.
Also:
...but the financial information in the Q2 Report is so unreliable and potentially fictitious that any issuance of shares would create a substantial risk of violations of federal and state securities laws...
...7 Whether any of the prior acts of NSAV, Tilton, Silverbear, or others constitute securities fraud or other violations of the securities laws of any jurisdiction, is beyond the scope of this Initial Report.
And this was recently posted on "X":
Vik Grover
@vikpgrover
No desire anymore to fix $NSAV shell it's radioactive w alleged fraud ? able acctng, we will bring $HMLA current do 15c211 and revive crypto business in the vehicle if it makes sense, $NSAV receiver should pursue mgt cronied and Chinese IMO.
12:27 PM · Nov 22, 2024
This from AI:
Search Labs | AI Overview
If a receiver uncovers fraud during their duties, they are legally obligated to report it to the court that appointed them, and depending on the severity and nature of the fraud, they may also need to initiate further investigations, potentially involving law enforcement agencies, to recover any misappropriated funds and protect the interests of creditors and stakeholders in the receivership estate.
Key points about a receiver discovering fraud:
Duty to report:
A receiver has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the receivership estate, which means they must report any suspected fraud to the court immediately.
Investigation process:
Once fraud is suspected, the receiver will typically conduct a thorough investigation to gather evidence, identify the parties involved, and determine the full extent of the fraudulent activity.
Legal action:
Depending on the circumstances, the receiver may file legal actions against the individuals or entities responsible for the fraud to recover stolen funds or seek other remedies.
Cooperation with authorities:
If the fraud appears to be criminal in nature, the receiver may be required to cooperate with law enforcement agencies by providing information and evidence.
Specific actions a receiver might take upon discovering fraud:
File a report with the court:
Submit a detailed report to the court outlining the suspected fraud, the evidence gathered, and proposed next steps.
Seek court authorization:
If necessary, request court approval to take further investigative actions, such as freezing assets or obtaining subpoenas.
Consult with legal counsel:
Seek guidance from legal professionals regarding the appropriate legal actions to pursue against the perpetrators of the fraud.
Notify affected parties:
Depending on the situation, the receiver may need to inform creditors, investors, or other relevant parties about the discovered fraud.
Finally, from the receivers report:
In the interest of full disclosure to the markets, the Temporary Receiver will also serve a copy of this Initial Report on OTC Markets and on Pacific, although what OTC Markets and Pacific do with the Initial Report are beyond the scope of the Temporary Receiver’s powers and duties. The Temporary Receiver will also serve this Initial Report on the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will be available to provide the Court with any additional information.
Anyhow, I do wonder how many SEC complaints may have also been filed against NSAV/Tilton. Certainly some have I would think.
GLTS
$NSAV
leverage102
7日前
Motion to Vacate: Judge still needs to make a decision.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
VIKRAM P. GROVER, d/b/a
“IX ADVISORS” a/k/a “IXA”
Plaintiff,
v.
NET SAVINGS LINK, INC.,
WILTON GROUP, LIMITED,
WILTON UK (GROUP) LIMITED,
CHINA FOOD AND BEVERAGE CO.,
JAMES TILTON, and
JOHN DOES 1-100
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No 1:21-cv-5054
______________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS NET SAVINGS LINK, INC.’S MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
NOW COMES the Defendant, NET SAVINGS LINK, INC.. (“NSAC”), by and through
its attorneys of the law firm of Cole Sadkin, LLC, request this honorable Court to vacate the
default judgment entered on December 5, 2023, and as cause therefore states as follows:
1. On or about September 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant
NSAV.
2. NSAV was initially represented by counsel between 2021 and 2023.
3. On or about June 16, 2023, prior counsel was granted leave to withdraw and
NSAV was advised by the court that failure to procure replacement counsel could lead to a
1
Case: 1:21-cv-05054 Document #: 203 Filed: 08/15/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2500
default judgment being entered against NetSave on December 5, 2023.
4. NSAV faced difficulty in finding replacement counsel and attempted to represent
itself using Pro Se Defendant James Tilton to attempt to navigate the court proceedings while
Defendants continued to look for adequate representation.
5. NSAV retained Jawad Fitter as local counsel who appeared before the court on
August 6, 2024 and has subsequently retained Cole Sadkin, LLC as lead counsel to provide
representation both for NetSav and Tilton.
6. The Defaults against NSAV and Tilton were entered as a technicality and not due
to robust litigation of the action.
Legal Standard Warranting Vacating a Default Judgment
7. “In determining whether to set aside a default judgment, courts are required to
seek justice through the exercise of fairness to both parties.” Brewer v. Martin, 96 Ill. App. 2d
54, 61, 238 N.E.2d 162, 165 (1st Dist. 1968). Also, “When reviewing a motion to vacate a
judgment, the overriding considerations are whether substantial justice is being done (between
the parties).” Bickel v. Subway Development of Chicagoland, Inc. 354 Ill. App. 3d 1090, 1097,
290 Ill. Dec. 884, 891, 822 N.E.2d 469, 476 (5th Dist. 2004).
8. Furthermore, “f facts exist which, had they been known to the trial court, would
have precluded judgment, a motion to vacate the judgment should be granted.” In re Marriage of
Romashko, 212 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 1024, 156 Ill. Dec. 1015, 1019, 571 N.E.2d 995, 999 (1st Dist.
1991) (Emphasis added).
9. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) provides that “[t]he court may set aside an
entry of default for good cause . . . .” FRCP 55(c). “[I]n general, in the absence of a showing of
2
Case: 1:21-cv-05054 Document #: 203 Filed: 08/15/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2501
willfulness, courts in the Seventh Circuit are more likely than not to set aside an entry of default
or even to vacate a default judgment.” Hamilton v. Ill. Central R. R. Co., 2008 WL 78784, at *4
(S.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2008 (citing Sims v. EGD Prods., Inc., 475 F.3d 865, 868 (7th Cir. 2007)); see
also C.K.S. Engineers, Inc. v. White Mountain Gypsum Co., 726 F.2d 1202, 1205 (7th Cir. 1984).
10. This is also due, in part, to the reluctance of courts to enter a default or a default
judgment. See Stafford v. Mesnik, 63 F.3d 1445, 1450 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[A] default judgment
should not be considered a ready response to all litigant misbehavior.”); Stainback v. Dixon, No.
07 C 3091, 2007 WL 2684086, at *1 (C.D. Ill. July 3, 2007) (“Because a default judgment is a
harsh sanction, it should be employed only in extreme situations when other less drastic
sanctions have proven unavailing.”) (quoting C.K.S. Engineers, Inc. 726 F.2d at 1205). Indeed,
the test for setting aside an entry of default “is applied more liberally” than the test for setting
aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b). Medline, 218 F.R.D. at 172 (citing United States v.
DiMucci, 879 F.2d 1488, 1495 (7th Cir. 1989)).
Defendants NSAV and Tilton have a Meritorious Defense
11. NSAV has not had a chance to litigate the grounds of this complaint, including
raising its meritorious defenses regarding the participation of former NetSave CEO Steven Baritz
in concealing the agreement with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s contributory negligence and delays in
bringing the action, including not naming former CEO Steven Baritz in the action, and lack of
performance on the part of Plaintiff regarding his alleged position and duties as “Director of
Corporate Finance”.
12. The agreement Plaintiff allegedly entered into with former NSAV CEO Steven
Baritz is the basis for all of the Plaintiff’s contentions within his complaint, however, Plaintiff
3
Case: 1:21-cv-05054 Document #: 203 Filed: 08/15/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:2502
fails to name Steven Baritz as a party to the Complaint, while alleging that Defendant James
Tilton was aware at all times of this agreement to which Tilton was not a party. Neither Plaintiff
nor Steven Baritz disclosed the agreement to Tilton nor in their SEC filings.
13. Plaintiff asserts that he had an employment relationship with NSAV which was
breached, however, NSAV did not receive services from the Plaintiff nor did they pay him for
services or provide him with annual tax forms as would be required for any employee of the
company. The above-captioned litigation is the first time that Plaintiff asserted his employment
relationship with either NSAV or Tilton, five (5) years after the stock transfer.
14. Without the court allowing the defaults to be overturned, Defendants will not be
allowed to adequately state and defend their position, or challenge the allegations of the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Net Savings Link, Inc., prays that this honorable Court grants
its Motion to Vacate Default Judgment; grant leave to file a responsive pleading; and for such
further relief as this honorable Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: August 15, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Mason S. Cole______
Mason S. Cole
Cole Sadkin, LLC
1652 West Belmont Avenue, Suite 1
Chicago, IL 60657
colesadkin.com
(312) 548-8610
ARDC: 6307727
mcole@colesadkin.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
4
Case: 1:21-cv-05054 Document #: 203 Filed: 08/15/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:2503
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, a non-attorney, hereby certifies that on August 15, 2024 she electronically filed
the aforementioned documents, pleadings, or papers with the Clerk of the Court using the
CM/ECF system which will send electronic notification of such filing to all CM/ECF
participants.
/s/ Rebecca Bach
Rebecca Bach
5
Case: 1:21-cv-05054 Document #: 203 Filed: 08/15/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:2504
Hot Features
プレミアム
登録して無料でリアルタイムの株価、インタラクティブチャート、ライブオプションフローなどを入手してください。
lakers17
22時間前
Gooddolphin
23時間前
AverageJoe
23時間前
nicehit
1日前
Running Wild
4日前
