Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1524)	5/9/2001 9:41:10 PM
From: mmmary	Respond to of 12465

southridge capital lawsuits There are a few lawsuits against them and from them. The ones against them are for fraud and stock manipulation. The ones from them are for slander and libel. In all honesty, these companies agreed to those financing terms. Maybe they didn't realize what the terms really meant. Maybe they did and they just wanted the money and decided to blame the stock drop on southridge, kernaghan... Who's to say. Only thing I know is that Southridge kernaghan don't seem to lose these things. I've been trying to dig up those records.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1524)	5/10/2001 2:57:19 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 5/9/01 - [DGJL/ASTN?] Correction Wednesday May 9, 5:22 pm Eastern Time Press Release Correction -- Southridge Capital Management In DCW033, Southridge Capital Management, Cootes Drive, LLC, and York, LLC Sue D.G. Jewelry for Tortious Interference With Contract and Defamation, moved earlier today, we are advised by a representative of the company that the source line should read ``York, LLC'' rather than ``Southridge Capital Management'' and the Contact line should read ``Arlene de Castro of Navigator Management, 284-494-4770'' rather than ``Arlene de Castro of Southridge Capital Management, 284-494-4770'' as originally issued. biz.yahoo.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1524)	6/14/2001 12:08:38 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 6/13/01 - [ELAW] Internet Law Library Responds to Cootes Drive Wednesday June 13, 11:25 am Eastern Time Press Release Internet Law Library Responds to Cootes Drive HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 13, 2001--Internet Law Library Inc. (OTCBB:ELAW - news; interlawlibrary.com) announced today a response to Cootes Drive. ``Cootes Drive continues to harass the company with litigation we believe to be unwarranted, and continues to post press releases that deceivingly appear at Internet Law Library's site,'' said Corporate Secretary, Carol Wilson. ``Internet Law Library originally sued Cootes Drive in Houston, on Jan. 26, 2001, alleging fraud and manipulation of the company's stock, driving the price down to 12 cents and attempting to take control of the company by converting its preferred shares at that price. Cootes Drive is an alleged Cayman Islands entity that, according to its own legal disclosures, has no actual persons with knowledge of the controversy between the parties. Internet Law Library believes, and believes that it will be able to prove, that Cootes Drive did not even exist until about May 11, 2000, when its name was inserted in the funding transactions, which Internet Law Library entered in good faith, believing it was dealing with Southridge Capital Management, an entity that appeared to be an accredited investor, as required in the transaction documents,'' said Charles Peterson, general counsel. Peterson continued, ``Following Internet Law Library's filing of the suit in Houston, Cootes Drive has filed suit in New York, and now has filed suit in Delaware, stating to the court that Cootes Drive is a stockholder of Internet Law Library, when in fact the records of the transfer agent indicate that Cootes Drive does not own any shares of the common stock of Internet Law Library, a requirement for bringing the lawsuit in Delaware.'' Internet Law Library is aware that there have been instances where Southridge Capital, Thomson Kernaghan, and the other defendants in the Texas lawsuit have filed vexatious lawsuits and issued spurious press releases, baiting companies to publish press releases to defend themselves from the questionable actions, only to then use those press releases as the basis of a defamation suit, further driving companies deeper into attorney's fees and trying to drive them out of business. Internet Law Library wants its stockholders to know that it is fighting these actions on all fronts. When Internet Law Library's stock was depressed due to the shorting and other conspiratorial actions of the defendants as alleged in its Texas lawsuit, and when those ``investors'' failed to honor their commitments, which the company had relied on to its detriment, the company was forced to seek funding elsewhere. Directors of the company, who believe in the company and its business plan, were forced to advance funds to the company, and the board agreed that the conversion price should be the same as that given to Cootes Drive. Now Cootes Drive bases its claims in the Delaware suit on facts it created in the Convertible Preferred Stock transaction it foisted on Internet Law Library. Questions may be directed to the company's chief trial counsel, Houston attorney John M. O'Quinn, 713-223-1000. Internet Law Library Inc., owns subsidiaries operating Internet sites that provide subscription access to databases used for tracking pending legislation and for performing legal and medical research. They are: National Law Library (http://www.itislaw.com), GoverNet Affairs (http://www.govaffairs.com), Brief Reporter (http://www.briefreporter.com), Compass Data Systems (http://www.compassdata.com), Venco Compliance Inc, (http://www.itisvenco.com) and ITIS Inc. (http://www.itisinc.com). Except for the historical information contained in this press release, certain statements in this release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of ``safe harbor'' provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of Internet Law Library Inc. and/or its subsidiary companies to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include: general economic and business conditions; competition; success of operating initiatives; development of capital and operating costs; market conditions; advertising and promotional efforts; adverse publicity; changes in business strategy or development plans; quality of management and other personnel; and government regulations. Accordingly, the above statements are considered the opinion and beliefs of the company or its counsel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact: Internet Law Library Inc., Houston Investor Relations, 281/600-6000 ext. 605 biz.yahoo.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1524)	2/27/2002 11:51:42 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 12465

Re: 2/26/02 - [DGJL] D.G. Jewelry Loses Appeal in Haymarket Case D.G. Jewelry Loses Appeal in Haymarket Case Court Holds That DGJL Produced No Evidence of Manipulation of Its Stock DGJL Loses on Motions to Dismiss Defamation, Tortious Interference Claims In Other Litigation Between the Parties NEW YORK, Feb 26, 2002 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- In a decision dated January 17, 2002, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the trial court judgment holding D.G. Jewelry, Inc. (Nasdaq: DGJL chart, msgs) liable to its investor, Haymarket LLC, for breach of a stock purchase agreement. The appeals court rejected D.G. Jewelry's argument that Haymarket and its investment advisor, Southridge Capital Management, had participated in a scheme to depress the price of DGJL stock. D.G. Jewelry had alleged such a scheme in defense of its refusal to honor the stock purchase agreement with Haymarket. The appeals court, however, ruled that D.G. Jewelry "failed to offer any evidence" that Haymarket or Southridge "had a motive for depressing the price of stock simply to obtain a right to demand issuance of additional devalued shares." Based on the evidence, the appeals court concluded that no rational person could possibly have found that Haymarket or Southridge had manipulated the price of D.G. Jewelry stock. In accordance with the ruling, D.G. Jewelry has belatedly turned over to Haymarket 316,933 shares of its common stock. The court has also ordered Zurich North America, which issued a bond pending the appeal, to pay Haymarket a sum in excess of $375,000. In addition, the lawsuit has been remanded to the trial court for a determination of additional monetary damages. The stock purchase agreement provides for liquidated damages of approximately $30,000 per day, which now total more than $25 million. Haymarket's motion for entry of judgment in that amount is currently pending in the trial court. Stephen Hicks of Southridge Capital Management commented, "This unqualified vindication of Southridge and its client by not only the trial court, but now an appellate court as well, is extremely gratifying. This is unquestionable confirmation that these claims were baseless." According to Hicks, Southridge and its clients will continue to pursue a separate lawsuit filed last May against D.G. Jewelry and its president Jack Berkovits, based upon Berkovits' and DGJL's alleged defamatory statements and malicious efforts to induce companies to breach their contracts with Southridge clients. Southridge and those clients recently defeated motions to dismiss their defamation and tortious interference claims against the DGJL parties. The New York federal court, in an Opinon and Order issued on February 25, 2002, held that Berkovits' and DGJL's motions were without merit and that the defamation and other claims against DGJL warranted consideration by a jury. "We remain committed not only to defending against meritless claims, but also to prosecuting those who wrongfully and without legal basis seek to harm the business of Southridge and its clients," Hicks said. Source: Southridge Capital Management Contact: Stephen Hicks of Southridge Capital Management, +1-203-438-1289 (DGJL) siliconinvestor.com