top of page

The Basile Law Firm P.C. - Recent Court Wins

Updated: Apr 9

·       ***Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSYS ID, Inc***., 37 N.Y.3d (N.Y., Oct. 14, 2021) - Established Court of Appeals precedent on two issues:  first, under NY's well-established usury laws, a floating-price conversion is interest that must be accounted for in a usury analysis, and second, that when a loan to a corporate borrower charges interest at a rate in excess of 25% per annum, the borrower may raise the defense of criminal usury and the transaction must be declared void ab initio. Saved client more than 100M shares in dilution. (OTCM:GNID)

·       Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSYSID, Inc., Appeal No. 18-3023 (U.S.C.A. 2d Cir., March 15, 2022) - Pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision in Adar Bays, vacating final judgment granted in favor of plaintiff-convertible note lender against defendant-corporate borrower and remanding for further proceedings. Toxic lender filed voluntary dismissal with prejudice after remand to trial court.  Walked away from collecting on loan. Saved client m more than 100M shares in dilution. (OTCM:GNID)

·       Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. v Cardinal Energy Group, Inc. Case No. 2:16-cv-01545 (S.D.N.Y.-2021- Court found Virginia law non-applicable and applied NY law (usury laws) to transaction. (OTCM:CEGX)

·       LG Capital Funding, LLC v. Cardinal Energy Group, Inc., Appeal No. 19-0022 (U.S.C.A. 2d Cir., April 22, 2022) - Vacating final judgment granted in favor of plaintiff-convertible note lender against defendant-corporate borrower more than $200,000 and remanding for further proceedings. Toxic lender filed voluntary dismissal with prejudice at trial court and Case subsequently settled before any further proceedings on the merits after remand. Toxic lender dismissed case with prejudice and walked away from judgment. Saved client more than 50M shares in dilution. (OTCM:CEGX)

·       EMA Financial, LLC v. nFUSZ, Inc., Case no. 1:18-cv-03634 (S.D.N.Y., 2021) (pre-Adar Bays) Suit by toxic lender to enforce certain warrant provisions. Federal Court reformed Toxic lenders warrants seeking $13M in stock down to $488K, saved client $12.5M (NASDAQ:VERB)

·       iQSTEL Inc. v. Labrys Fund LLC – (D. Mass) Filed federal lawsuit for Dealer Registration violations against toxic lender - Toxic lender settled - saved client more than $10M in dilution. (NASDAQ:QSTL)

·       HPIL Holding v. Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02287 (E.D.N.Y., filed April 22, 2022) - Commenced an action under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act for unlawful debt collection against the principals of Power Up; settlement reached within approximately 1 month after commencing the case. (OTCM:HPIL)

·       HPIL Holding v. GPL Management LLC et al. v GPL Ventures, Case No. 1:22-cv-02959 (S.D.N.Y., filed April 11, 2022) - Commenced an action under RICO for unlawful debt collection against the principals of GPL Management; settlement reached within approximately 1 month after commencing the case. (OTCM:HPIL)

·       VNUE, Inc., Triton Funds LLC, and Triton Funds LP - Negotiated pre-suit (dealer registration violation claims) settlement for VNUE with two convertible note lenders, saving client approximately $8 million in warrant dilution (300M shares) exposure. (OTCM:VNUE)

·       VNUE, Inc. v. Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. et. al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05545 (E.D.N.Y., filed Oct. 6, 2021) - Commenced an action under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act for unlawful debt collection against the principals of Power Up; settlement reached less than 1 year after commencing the case. (OTCM:VNUE)

·       LG Capital Funding, LLC v. Exeled Holdings Inc., Case No. 17-cv-04006 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2022) - Pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision in Adar Bays, vacating final judgment in favor of plaintiff-convertible note lender against defendant-corporate borrower more than $750,000.00, and case reopened for further proceedings on defendant's criminal usury defense and civil RICO claims. (OTCM:ELED)

·       Carebourn Capital, L.P. v. DarkPulse, Inc., Case No. 27-cv-21-1173 (Minn. Dist. Ct., April 21, 2023) First corporate-issuer to prevail on summary judgment motion against plaintiff-Unregistered Securities Dealer on statutory affirmative defense interposed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Pursuant to Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act, plaintiff's violation of Section 15(a) entitled defendant-corporation to have all securities contracts declared. null and void. (First in nation civil suit decision against a toxic convertible note lender in Unregistered Dealer case.) Saved client more than 300M shares in dilution and $400K, awarded client monetary damages). (OTCM:DPLS)

·       More Capital, L.P. v Darkpulse, Inc., Case No. 27-cv-21-1173 Minn. Dist. Ct., August 22, 2023) Corporate-issuer to prevail on summary judgment motion against plaintiff-Unregistered Securities Dealer on statutory affirmative defense interposed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Pursuant to Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act, plaintiff's violation of Section 15(a) entitled defendant-corporation to have all securities contracts declared. null and void. (First in nation civil suit decision against a toxic convertible note lender in Unregistered Dealer case.) Saved client more than 300M shares in dilution and $150K, awarded client monetary damages). (OTCM:DPLS)

·       DarkPulse, Inc. v. EMA Financial, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00045 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023) - Defeated convertible note lender and its principal's motion to dismiss corporate-borrower's claims for RICO unlawful debt collection, alleging more than $500,000.00 in damages.  Case settled quickly.  (First in nation toxic convertible note RICO case) (OTCM:DPLS)

·       Auctus Fund, LLC v. Players Network, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10766 (D. Mass., Dec. 10, 2021) - Defeated plaintiff-convertible note lender's motion to dismiss defendant-corporation's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaims that plaintiff is an unregistered dealer acting in violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange of 1934 and, therefore, defendant is entitled to recessionary relief under Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act. (First in nation decision against convertible note holder under dealer registration violation claims). (OTCM:PNTV)

·       Social Life Network, Inc. v. LGH Investments, LLC et al., Appeal No. 22-55774 (U.S.C.A. 9th Cir., May 25, 2023) - Reversing trial court's order on defendants-convertible note lender and its principal's motion to dismiss claim for violation of the California usury statute after finding the Legislature did not intend to aggregate indebtedness from transactions with different lenders when enacting the usury exemption under Cal. Corp. Code § 25118(b).  (First in state decision against. Toxic convertible note lender on California usury exemptions) (OTCM:WDLF)

·       Goodman et al. v Darkpulse, Inc. (Ariz. State District Ct.- June 2023) Client sued by former directors for 900M shares and $36M. Defended suit and negotiated settlement saving client $33M and over 2B shares in dilution. (OTCM:DPLS)

·       Barrell Energy, Inc. v Crown Bridge Partners, LLC (NY) Pre-suit settlement – threat of Dealer Registration violations and Civil RICO. Saved client $3.5M in future dilution and toxic lender walked away from remaining amounts due. (OTCM:BRRL)

·       Barrell Energy, Inc. v Auctus Fund, LLC (Mass.) Pre-suit settlement – threat of Dealer Registration violations and Civil RICO) Saved client $8M (400M shares) in future dilution. (OTCM:BRRL)

·       Genius Group Ltd. v Alto Opportunity Master Fund Case No. 1:23-cv-01639 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) Client hired firm as Special Counsel – Toxic Debt litigation – within 10 days, toxic lenders came to settlement with client. (NYSE:GNS)

·       Auctus Fund LLC v OriginClear, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-10273  (D. Mass. 2023)– after our client appealed a decision in favor of Auctus, Auctus agreed to settle case by foregoing a $1.5M judgment, foregoing 80M shares of dilution and dismissing case with prejudice.(OTCM:OCLN)

·       VERB Technologies, Inc. v. Iroquois Capital  Case No. 651708/2022 (NY Supreme Court - 2023) – Substituted in as counsel, appealed lower court decision denying amending the complaint to include a federal securities dealer registration defense to defendants counterclaims, defendants settled quickly saving our client $1.3M and more than 30M shares in dilution. (NASDAQ:VERB)

·       Ema Financial, LLC v Joey New York, et, al. Appeal No. 22-274 (U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit., September 6, 2023) Vacating trial courts order that the lower court failed to apply the proper standards to determine usury in accord with Adar Bays. Case was remanded and lower court directed to find transaction void and unenforceable if violated usury statutes in accord with Adar BaysDilution funder walked away from continuing the litigation and settled by dismissing case with prejudice. Saved client over 77M shares in dilution. (OTCM:JOEY)

·       RBK Funding v OPTEC International and Roger Pawson. Case No.  37-2022-00051185 (Superior Court – California) – November 1, 2023 – Shareholder Derivative suit awarding our client(s) $14,681,270.50, removing the CEO from office and his Board position, enjoining any additional transfer of stock or assets. (OTCM:OPTI)

Social Life Network, Inc. v LGH INvestments, LLC and Lucas Hoppel, Case No. 3:21-cv-00767 (U.S.D.C. S.D.C.A. - November 19, 2023) After remand from the 11Th Circuit Court of Appeals, Trial court denies dilution funders motion to dismiss, finding that the transaction is criminally usurious under California State usury statutes. (OTCM:WDLF)

·       Darkpulse, Inc. v Firstfire Global Opportunity Fund. Case No. 23-0078-CV (U.S.C.A 2nd Circuit – March 28, 2024) – Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacates District Courts judgment dismissing RICO and Dealer Registration claims made by our client, remanded case back to Trial court for disposition.  (OTCM:DPLS)

Safety Shot, Inc. v Capybara Research et al. Case No. 1:23-cv-10728 (USDC-SDNY – March 18, 2024)) Final Judgment against Capybara Research permanently enjoining from authoring or publishing any additional articles referencing the subject article; ordered to remove that article from any and all media outlets; publicly retract that subject article and ordering any and enjoined all media outlets from authoring or publishing or referencing the subject article.

107 views0 comments

Comments


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page