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: scion who wrote (11596)	3/28/2012 7:10:54 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

3/26/2012 72 MINUTES OF DEFENDANT INVESTORSHUB.COM INC.S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND/OR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURTS ORDER RE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES (Dkt. 61): Motion Hearing held before Judge John A Kronstadt: the Court orders Plaintiff to participate in a debtors examination at a mutually agreed upon time and place during the period between June 13, 2012 and June 22, 2012. The Court imposes a $2,500 sanction based on the reasonableness of the fees incurred given the time spent, results achieved and hourly rates of counsel. Thus, such fees would not have been necessary absent Plaintiffs conduct toward this Courts Order that he pay certain attorneys fees. The payment of this sanction is stayed pending the conclusion of Plaintiffs debtors examination. The Court sets a status conference for July 2, 2012 at 1:30 p.m., and will stay the entry of sanctions through that time. The parties are ordered to file a status report not to exceed three pages onor before June 27, 2012, apprising the Court of any new developments and the result of the debtors examination. If the debtors examination demonstrates that Plaintiff does not have the additional assets identified by Defendant, then Plaintiff can seek relief from the $2,500 sanction at that time. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (shb) (Entered: 03/28/2012) Doc 72 PDF file viewer.zoho.com Extract: Proceedings: DEFENDANT INVESTORSHUB.COM INC.’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND/OR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER RE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES (Dkt. 61) The continued motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative view on the record and is inclined to deny the motion for contempt. Defendant has not satisfied the procedural requirements for criminal contempt, and has stated it seeks only civil contempt. However, civil contempt is not the proper procedural mechanism for enforcing a money judgment absent extraordinary circumstances not demonstrated here. The Court notes, however, that Defendant presented evidence of Plaintiff’s assets, including seven million shares of stock and real property located in France, which is currently the subject of a family law proceeding in California state court. Plaintiff had not presented this information previously, notwithstanding assertions that he lacked assets or income sufficient to pay the attorney’s fees awarded in this action. Plaintiff addresses the Court regarding the conclusion of the family law proceeding and its final order allowing Plaintiff to sell the real property which is currently being processed by the French judiciary. Plaintiff expresses his belief that the real property will be sold in six to nine months. Plaintiff also expresses his willingness to participate in a debtor’s examination and represents that he will be present in the United States and available for such an examination in June 2012. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to participate in a debtor’s examination at a mutually agreed upon time and place during the period between June 13, 2012 and June 22, 2012. The Court sets defense counsel’s office as the default location if the parties cannot agree on another location. The Court orders Plaintiff to submit monthly updates in writing to defense counsel regarding the status of the French proceedings, each of which shall include a time estimate as to when the real property will be sold and the estimated net proceeds of the sale to Plaintiff and others. The first such update shall be submitted to defense counsel on or before April 30, 2012. Independent of any contempt proceeding, the Court has authority to impose sanctions for bad faith, serious lack of cooperation with respect to, and/or intentional non-compliance with, a Court Order. The Court notes that this authority extends to the full amount of attorney’s fees sought, which in this matter is over $5,000. In its discretion, the Court imposes a $2,500 sanction based on the reasonableness of the fees incurred given the time spent, results achieved and hourly rates of counsel. Thus, such fees would not have been necessary absent Plaintiff’s conduct toward this Court’s Order that he pay certain attorney’s fees. The payment of this sanction is stayed pending the conclusion of Plaintiff’s debtor’s examination. The Court sets a status conference for July 2, 2012 at 1:30 p.m., and will stay the entry of sanctions through that time. The parties are ordered to file a status report not to exceed three pages on or before June 27, 2012, apprising the Court of any new developments and the result of the debtor’s examination. If the debtor’s examination demonstrates that Plaintiff does not have the additional assets identified by Defendant, then Plaintiff can seek relief from the $2,500 sanction at that time. IT IS SO ORDERED.

To: scion who wrote (11596)	7/3/2012 2:52:35 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

3. Defendant Kenneth G. Eade (“Eade”), the company’s corporate counsel at the time and major shareholder, drafted the false and misleading periodic and current reports and some of the financial statements at issue. To spark interest in the company, Eade misrepresented the company’s financial activities by initially representing that the Russian mining interests were worth more than $1.3 billion. SEC Complaint sec.gov SEC CHARGES GOLD STANDARD MINING CORP. AND OTHERS FOR FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS CONCERNING RUSSIAN GOLD MINING OPERATIONS. U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 22408 / July 3, 2012 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gold Standard Mining Corp. (formerly known as Fluid Solutions Inc.), Panteleimon Zachos, Kenneth G. Eade, Edward Randall Gruber, CPA, and Gruber & Company, LLC, Civil Action No. CV-12-5662 PA (CWx) (C.D. Cal.) SEC CHARGES GOLD STANDARD MINING CORP. AND OTHERS FOR FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS CONCERNING RUSSIAN GOLD MINING OPERATIONS. On June 29, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Gold Standard Mining Corp. (“Gold Standard”), its Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer Panteleimon Zachos, attorney Kenneth G. Eade, auditor E. Randall Gruber and his firm Gruber & Company LLC. In its complaint, the Commission alleges that, between May 2009 and April 2011, Gold Standard filed numerous reports about its purported Russian gold mining operations that were materially false and misleading in various respects. According to the complaint, Gold Standard represented that it had acquired a Russian gold mining company known as Ross Zoloto Co., Ltd. (“Ross Zoloto”), but did not inform investors that it had agreed to allow the prior owner of Ross Zoloto to keep profits from existing operations or of issues surrounding Russian government registration or approval of the business combination. The complaint also alleges that Gold Standard filed false or misleading financial statements. The complaint alleges that Gold Standard and Zachos were responsible for these misstatements, and that Eade, Gruber and Gruber & Co. substantially assisted Gold Standard in making these false and misleading statements. The complaint further alleges that Gruber & Co., through its sole member Edward Randall Gruber, misrepresented in an audit opinion that it had audited the company’s 2007, 2008 and 2009 consolidated financial statements in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, Gold Standard and Zachos consented to final judgments pursuant to which Gold Standard will be enjoined from violating Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder, and Zachos will be enjoined from violating Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13a-14 thereunder and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder. Zachos will also be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company. The judgments are subject to court approval. The complaint alleges that Eade and Gruber aided and abetted Gold Standard’s violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; Gruber & Co. violated Sections 10(b) and 10A(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder, and aided and abetted the violations of Gold Standard of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; and Gruber violated Section 10A(a) of the Exchange Act and aided and abetted the violations of Gruber & Co. of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder or, in the alternative, in liable as a control person of Gruber & Co. LLC with respect to those violations pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties against Eade, Gruber and Gruber & Co. and seeks to bar Eade from serving as an officer or director of a public company. SEC Complaint sec.gov sec.gov

To: scion who wrote (11596)	7/3/2012 4:20:53 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12465

Pacer update - 29 Jun 12 - Kenneth Eade v. Investorshub.com, Inc. et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-01315 ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov Date Filed # Docket Text 06/29/2012 78 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Order on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Appear 77 . Due to a system error, the Order was not uploaded to the docket. The.pdf image for document 77 is attached hereto, (Attachments: # 1 Order denying motion to appear by telephone Document 77 image) (shb) (Entered: 06/29/2012) 06/29/2012 77 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE by Judge John A Kronstadt: IT IS ORDERED that the motion is untimely and DENIED. Plaintiff shall appear in person on July 2, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. 76 (ake) (Entered: 06/29/2012) 06/28/2012 76 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave of KENNETH EADE to Appear for the hearing on Defendants Motion for Contempt, Sanctions, and Attorneys Fees, on July 2, 2012 at 1:30 pm filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Eade. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Eade, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/28/2012) 06/28/2012 75 DECLARATION of Kenneth Eade in opposition of MOTION for Sanctions against Plaintiff Kenneth Eade 61 Regarding Status of Motion for Contempt, and/or Monetary Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Eade. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Eade, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/28/2012) 06/27/2012 74 STATUS REPORT re Debtor Examination of Kenneth Eade filed by Defendant Investorshub.com, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Vick, Kevin) (Entered: 06/27/2012) 06/20/2012 73 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Christopher B. Good on behalf of Defendant Investorshub.com, Inc.. Filed by Defendant Investorshub.com, Inc. (Jassy, Jean-Paul) (Entered: 06/20/2012) Date Filed: 02/11/2011 Date Terminated: 07/12/2011 Demand: $9,999,000 Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity Plaintiff Kenneth Eade represented by Kenneth G Eade Kenneth G Eade Law Offices 6399 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 507 Los Angeles, CA 90048 323-782-8802 Fax: 310-861-0620 Email: keneade93101@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Investorshub.com, Inc. a Florida corp. Defendant Doe 1 also known as No Dummy Defendant Doe 2 also known as Janice Shell Defendant Doe 3 also known as Faster 183 Defendant Doe 4 also known as Stock Mavin Defendant Doe 5 also known as Renee Defendant Doe 6 also known as Virtual Drew Defendant Doe 7 also known as Bob 41 Defendant Doe 8 also known as Overachiever Defendant Doe 9 also known as Doberman Defendant Doe 10 ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov