Major Profits
2 weeks ago
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.
Major Profits
2 weeks ago
"First of all Tilton was not involved in that supposed 'contract'. Baritz made that deal in 2016. But it was between Baritz/NSAV and grover, not JT. That deal had contingencies that were not met, so the deal fell through. Grover DID wait 7 years before filing suit. Against Tilton, who was not involved in the first place."
First, make no mistake, I'm not arguing about this and do correct me if my memory fails here and/or if the quote from "Google U" below is wrong and doesn't apply (which I think it does).
But I have wondered for awhile now how it is that you seem to think you have the facts and Vik and the Courts got things wrong in this matter. And, without me searching for it, haven't you said that Tilton lost because he thought the lawsuit a "joke" and didn't respond so he defaulted, or something like that?
Anyhow, I went to "Google U" and found this and, the way I read it, Tilton can be held liable even though, according to you, the deal was between "Baritz/NSAV and grover".
From "Google U":
Search Labs | AI Overview
No, generally, a new CEO is not automatically liable for a deal broken by a previous CEO, but the company may still be liable, and the new CEO could face liability if they were involved in the breach or failed to address it.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Company Liability:
The company itself, not just the previous CEO, is usually responsible for contracts and agreements entered into by its representatives, including former CEOs.
New CEO's Potential Liability:
A new CEO could face liability if:
🔵They were involved in the breach of the deal, either directly or indirectly.
🔵They were grossly negligent in overseeing compliance or failing to address the breach.
🔵They acted outside of their authority or committed a criminal act.
Piercing the Corporate Veil:
In rare cases, if the company's actions are so intertwined with the CEO's personal actions, a court might "pierce the corporate veil" and hold the CEO personally liable.
Business Judgment Rule:
The business judgment rule protects board decisions, including those related to CEO actions, as long as they are made in good faith and with reasonable care.
Contractual Obligations:
Employment agreements with CEOs may contain clauses that address liability for actions taken during their tenure, which a lawyer can advise on.
Examples of CEO Liability:
CEOs can face personal liability in cases of fraud, tax evasion, or other illegal activities committed in their corporate capacity.
shotsky
2 weeks ago
Boy, have you ever got it wrong.
First of all Tilton was not involved in that supposed 'contract'. Baritz made that deal in 2016. But it was between Baritz/NSAV and grover, not JT. That deal had contingencies that were not met, so the deal fell through. Grover DID wait 7 years before filing suit. Against Tilton, who was not involved in the first place.
To help make it clear, everything I said can be found on IHUB. Not all at NSAV, and not all with JT. You have to go back into 2015, 2016 to see how this came to be. I have found it, and I have posted it on THIS board months ago when the court activities were going on. You can find what I wrote, and you can find the links I posted to prove it all.
Now as to saying I believed in the company, I had 285M shares worth about $3000. No way to unload them, so I sat on them. When it took off, I got rich. And so did some of my friends. We're talking about QUAD zero shares. No, I did not 'believe' in any way, but I was stuck with them and waited it out.
I don't expect NSAV to do anything in the future. They will go to the expert market, where none of us can buy. Not that I would - I still have about 40M shares to sit on.
Again, the whole nasty story is here on these board to read, if you search it out or follow my links.
BTW, I bought my first shares in 2017, shortly after JT took over as CEO. I have 500,000 NSAV dividend shares still. Unregistered, and restricted.
I have read every post and every filing. I goddammed well know what I'm talking about, but clearly, you do not. And I don't expect you to go look it up, instead preferring to pretend you have any idea of what happened and why. Don't bother answering me - you have been on ignore for years.
Trade smarter, not harder: Unleash your inner pro with our toolkit and live discussions.
Monroe1
9 hours ago
SmellMyFinger
1 day ago
Gooddolphin
2 weeks ago
lakers17
2 weeks ago
gail
1 month ago
Anvil
1 month ago
Hot Features
Premium
