SorcererDiviner18
1 일 전
Very odd post. Yes, I have said nothing except cited state and federal law which you continually discount without providing any relevant pushback. I am happy to be disproven...provided you post something of substance. Still waiting.
You need to read the post...
If you want to continue tagging me, you could at least rectify your misunderstanding of the state assertions, similar to how you finally came around and admitted that federal law assertions are involved in the case.
Here we see another unanswered post, all the while downplaying both federal and state laws.
Another bump - for those who are also watching the case and may wish to provide more context to this:
You seem to not have read my post?
We already know that procedural courts focused on enforcing the contract as written, thus why we are now in the appellate court.
In my opinion, the lower court likely focused narrowly on enforcing the contract as written, without addressing broader arguments like unconscionability, unjust enrichment, or public policy. This is common in lower courts, especially in commercial cases, as they often prioritize strict contract enforcement and assume both parties are sophisticated entities capable of negotiating fair terms.
Here’s why this might have happened and how the appeal could differ:
Contract Enforcement in Lower Courts:
Lower courts tend to prioritize the literal terms of the contract unless there is clear evidence of illegality, fraud, or procedural issues.
In commercial cases, they are often reluctant to invalidate terms unless they are blatantly oppressive or contrary to statutory law.
Reluctance to Apply Equity:
Lower courts may hesitate to invoke their equitable powers unless explicitly required, leaving broader issues like fairness or public policy to appellate courts.
Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court:
Appellate courts, like the Nevada Supreme Court, have broader jurisdiction and can consider arguments related to fairness, equity, and public policy.
In this case, BlackStar’s appeal focuses on issues such as:
Unconscionability of the 170% interest rate and stock retention.
Unjust enrichment, where GS allegedly retained more than necessary to satisfy the loan.
Bad faith, related to delays in providing payoff information and continuing litigation after full payment.
In appeals, higher courts often take a more nuanced view, especially if enforcing the contract would lead to inequitable or unjust outcomes.
What do you think? Could the Nevada Supreme Court weigh equity and fairness more heavily than the lower court?
While Nevada does not have a statutory cap on interest rates for commercial loans, the public policy principles embedded in usury laws and fairness doctrines provide a strong basis for challenging the 170% interest rate in this case. Courts have wide discretion to void or modify contract terms that are deemed predatory, unconscionable, or contrary to public policy, even in the absence of explicit statutory limits.
This aligns with both Nevada’s equity-focused jurisprudence and broader legal trends discouraging predatory financial practices. If BlackStar's legal team emphasizes these arguments effectively, it could strengthen their case in the Nevada Supreme Court.
What do you all think? Could public policy concerns play a significant role in the court’s decision here?
Equitable Principles and Public Policy
Nevada Constitution Article 6, Section 6:
Nevada courts have broad equitable powers to prevent unjust outcomes, even in the absence of specific statutory violations.
Text:
"The District Courts and the Supreme Court shall also have power to issue writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction and to hear and determine cases both at law and in equity."
Application:
Courts may apply these equitable powers to contracts that, while technically valid, result in unjust enrichment or outcomes that violate public policy.
Public Policy Principles Against Predatory Lending:
Contracts that exploit vulnerabilities or result in excessive gains for one party are often deemed contrary to public policy.
NRS 598A.060: Public Policy and Trade Practices:
"Contracts contrary to public policy are void and unenforceable."
This statute underscores Nevada’s commitment to fairness and the prevention of exploitative practices.
SorcererDiviner18
1 일 전
If it tells you a lot, why are you still here?
What your post tells me is that you were/are/thought about being a shareholder of the company, enough to find the telephone number and take the initiative to call.
You also said you were not following the seemingly laughable lawsuit, which should of given you a possible hint as to why there was a potential roadblock 'right around the corner'....
Look at the amounts involved in the case that I have listed below. This is quite important to any possible future initiatives. And if you were a shareholder, and were damaged in any way, you should really be looking at the case, even if it is pittance relative to your sizable NVDA gains.
Or you can just inquire about how to create your own liquidity from bashing posters and engage in void, adolescent trading tactics in a what amounts to a gigantic waste of time.
Your move, B67.
---
And if that doesn't wet your beak, maybe you can spend some time reading this to provide context and any useful insight that would help investors see any merit in the following. Start here, and then we can possibly move onto BEGI's federal assertions.
If you want to continue tagging me, you could at least rectify your misunderstanding of the state assertions, similar to how you finally came around and admitted that federal law assertions are involved in the case.
Here we see another unanswered post, all the while downplaying both federal and state laws.
Another bump - for those who are also watching the case and may wish to provide more context to this:
You seem to not have read my post?
We already know that procedural courts focused on enforcing the contract as written, thus why we are now in the appellate court.
In my opinion, the lower court likely focused narrowly on enforcing the contract as written, without addressing broader arguments like unconscionability, unjust enrichment, or public policy. This is common in lower courts, especially in commercial cases, as they often prioritize strict contract enforcement and assume both parties are sophisticated entities capable of negotiating fair terms.
Here’s why this might have happened and how the appeal could differ:
Contract Enforcement in Lower Courts:
Lower courts tend to prioritize the literal terms of the contract unless there is clear evidence of illegality, fraud, or procedural issues.
In commercial cases, they are often reluctant to invalidate terms unless they are blatantly oppressive or contrary to statutory law.
Reluctance to Apply Equity:
Lower courts may hesitate to invoke their equitable powers unless explicitly required, leaving broader issues like fairness or public policy to appellate courts.
Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court:
Appellate courts, like the Nevada Supreme Court, have broader jurisdiction and can consider arguments related to fairness, equity, and public policy.
In this case, BlackStar’s appeal focuses on issues such as:
Unconscionability of the 170% interest rate and stock retention.
Unjust enrichment, where GS allegedly retained more than necessary to satisfy the loan.
Bad faith, related to delays in providing payoff information and continuing litigation after full payment.
In appeals, higher courts often take a more nuanced view, especially if enforcing the contract would lead to inequitable or unjust outcomes.
What do you think? Could the Nevada Supreme Court weigh equity and fairness more heavily than the lower court?
While Nevada does not have a statutory cap on interest rates for commercial loans, the public policy principles embedded in usury laws and fairness doctrines provide a strong basis for challenging the 170% interest rate in this case. Courts have wide discretion to void or modify contract terms that are deemed predatory, unconscionable, or contrary to public policy, even in the absence of explicit statutory limits.
This aligns with both Nevada’s equity-focused jurisprudence and broader legal trends discouraging predatory financial practices. If BlackStar's legal team emphasizes these arguments effectively, it could strengthen their case in the Nevada Supreme Court.
What do you all think? Could public policy concerns play a significant role in the court’s decision here?
Equitable Principles and Public Policy
Nevada Constitution Article 6, Section 6:
Nevada courts have broad equitable powers to prevent unjust outcomes, even in the absence of specific statutory violations.
Text:
"The District Courts and the Supreme Court shall also have power to issue writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction and to hear and determine cases both at law and in equity."
Application:
Courts may apply these equitable powers to contracts that, while technically valid, result in unjust enrichment or outcomes that violate public policy.
Public Policy Principles Against Predatory Lending:
Contracts that exploit vulnerabilities or result in excessive gains for one party are often deemed contrary to public policy.
NRS 598A.060: Public Policy and Trade Practices:
"Contracts contrary to public policy are void and unenforceable."
This statute underscores Nevada’s commitment to fairness and the prevention of exploitative practices.
SorcererDiviner18
2 일 전
If you want to continue tagging me, you could at least rectify your misunderstanding of the state assertions, similar to how you finally came around and admitted that federal law assertions are involved in the case.
Here we see another unanswered post, all the while downplaying both federal and state laws.
Another bump - for those who are also watching the case and may wish to provide more context to this:
You seem to not have read my post?
We already know that procedural courts focused on enforcing the contract as written, thus why we are now in the appellate court.
In my opinion, the lower court likely focused narrowly on enforcing the contract as written, without addressing broader arguments like unconscionability, unjust enrichment, or public policy. This is common in lower courts, especially in commercial cases, as they often prioritize strict contract enforcement and assume both parties are sophisticated entities capable of negotiating fair terms.
Here’s why this might have happened and how the appeal could differ:
Contract Enforcement in Lower Courts:
Lower courts tend to prioritize the literal terms of the contract unless there is clear evidence of illegality, fraud, or procedural issues.
In commercial cases, they are often reluctant to invalidate terms unless they are blatantly oppressive or contrary to statutory law.
Reluctance to Apply Equity:
Lower courts may hesitate to invoke their equitable powers unless explicitly required, leaving broader issues like fairness or public policy to appellate courts.
Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court:
Appellate courts, like the Nevada Supreme Court, have broader jurisdiction and can consider arguments related to fairness, equity, and public policy.
In this case, BlackStar’s appeal focuses on issues such as:
Unconscionability of the 170% interest rate and stock retention.
Unjust enrichment, where GS allegedly retained more than necessary to satisfy the loan.
Bad faith, related to delays in providing payoff information and continuing litigation after full payment.
In appeals, higher courts often take a more nuanced view, especially if enforcing the contract would lead to inequitable or unjust outcomes.
What do you think? Could the Nevada Supreme Court weigh equity and fairness more heavily than the lower court?
While Nevada does not have a statutory cap on interest rates for commercial loans, the public policy principles embedded in usury laws and fairness doctrines provide a strong basis for challenging the 170% interest rate in this case. Courts have wide discretion to void or modify contract terms that are deemed predatory, unconscionable, or contrary to public policy, even in the absence of explicit statutory limits.
This aligns with both Nevada’s equity-focused jurisprudence and broader legal trends discouraging predatory financial practices. If BlackStar's legal team emphasizes these arguments effectively, it could strengthen their case in the Nevada Supreme Court.
What do you all think? Could public policy concerns play a significant role in the court’s decision here?
Equitable Principles and Public Policy
Nevada Constitution Article 6, Section 6:
Nevada courts have broad equitable powers to prevent unjust outcomes, even in the absence of specific statutory violations.
Text:
"The District Courts and the Supreme Court shall also have power to issue writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction and to hear and determine cases both at law and in equity."
Application:
Courts may apply these equitable powers to contracts that, while technically valid, result in unjust enrichment or outcomes that violate public policy.
Public Policy Principles Against Predatory Lending:
Contracts that exploit vulnerabilities or result in excessive gains for one party are often deemed contrary to public policy.
NRS 598A.060: Public Policy and Trade Practices:
"Contracts contrary to public policy are void and unenforceable."
This statute underscores Nevada’s commitment to fairness and the prevention of exploitative practices.
SorcererDiviner18
2 일 전
Here we see another unanswered post, all the while downplaying both federal and state laws.
Another bump - for those who are also watching the case and may wish to provide more context to this:
You seem to not have read my post?
We already know that procedural courts focused on enforcing the contract as written, thus why we are now in the appellate court.
In my opinion, the lower court likely focused narrowly on enforcing the contract as written, without addressing broader arguments like unconscionability, unjust enrichment, or public policy. This is common in lower courts, especially in commercial cases, as they often prioritize strict contract enforcement and assume both parties are sophisticated entities capable of negotiating fair terms.
Here’s why this might have happened and how the appeal could differ:
Contract Enforcement in Lower Courts:
Lower courts tend to prioritize the literal terms of the contract unless there is clear evidence of illegality, fraud, or procedural issues.
In commercial cases, they are often reluctant to invalidate terms unless they are blatantly oppressive or contrary to statutory law.
Reluctance to Apply Equity:
Lower courts may hesitate to invoke their equitable powers unless explicitly required, leaving broader issues like fairness or public policy to appellate courts.
Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court:
Appellate courts, like the Nevada Supreme Court, have broader jurisdiction and can consider arguments related to fairness, equity, and public policy.
In this case, BlackStar’s appeal focuses on issues such as:
Unconscionability of the 170% interest rate and stock retention.
Unjust enrichment, where GS allegedly retained more than necessary to satisfy the loan.
Bad faith, related to delays in providing payoff information and continuing litigation after full payment.
In appeals, higher courts often take a more nuanced view, especially if enforcing the contract would lead to inequitable or unjust outcomes.
What do you think? Could the Nevada Supreme Court weigh equity and fairness more heavily than the lower court?
While Nevada does not have a statutory cap on interest rates for commercial loans, the public policy principles embedded in usury laws and fairness doctrines provide a strong basis for challenging the 170% interest rate in this case. Courts have wide discretion to void or modify contract terms that are deemed predatory, unconscionable, or contrary to public policy, even in the absence of explicit statutory limits.
This aligns with both Nevada’s equity-focused jurisprudence and broader legal trends discouraging predatory financial practices. If BlackStar's legal team emphasizes these arguments effectively, it could strengthen their case in the Nevada Supreme Court.
What do you all think? Could public policy concerns play a significant role in the court’s decision here?
Equitable Principles and Public Policy
Nevada Constitution Article 6, Section 6:
Nevada courts have broad equitable powers to prevent unjust outcomes, even in the absence of specific statutory violations.
Text:
"The District Courts and the Supreme Court shall also have power to issue writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction and to hear and determine cases both at law and in equity."
Application:
Courts may apply these equitable powers to contracts that, while technically valid, result in unjust enrichment or outcomes that violate public policy.
Public Policy Principles Against Predatory Lending:
Contracts that exploit vulnerabilities or result in excessive gains for one party are often deemed contrary to public policy.
NRS 598A.060: Public Policy and Trade Practices:
"Contracts contrary to public policy are void and unenforceable."
This statute underscores Nevada’s commitment to fairness and the prevention of exploitative practices.
Bubae
2 일 전
The only thing that matters at this point is the new dilution if CEO Joe is successful in getting his Section 3(a)(10) exemption for what will be much more than $1 million in new free trading stock. Also the ongoing walk-up and share dump activity while they feed the vested restricted shares in. My question to the SEC is why would you hand over such a tool like the Section 3(a)(10) exemption to a group that is clearly abusing the current system. This type of activity is not legal and the SEC should be looking into who is doing it. This was done while CEO Joe was running his infomercials earlier in the year. Let us also not forget that Blackstar is now delinquent in their reporting.
Painting the Tape: Definition, Legality, Example
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paintingthetape.asp#:~:text=Painting%20the%20tape%20increases%20volume,it%20creates%20an%20artificial%20price.
By WILL KENTON Full BioWill Kenton is an expert on the economy and investing laws and regulations. He previously held senior editorial roles at Investopedia and Kapitall Wire and holds a MA in Economics from The New School for Social Research and Doctor of Philosophy in English literature from NYU.
Learn about our editorial policies Updated February 28, 2021Reviewed by ERIKA RASURE
Painting the tape increases volume and attracts investors, who then may push a price higher. The market manipulators will then sell their holdings to investors unaware of the manipulation.
Painting the tape is an illegal activity and prohibited by the SEC because it creates an artificial price.
Bubae
Re: Gunner54 post# 14833
Friday, November 22, 2024 7:00:41 PM
Post# 14836 of 14853
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175429920
And yet another attempt to spin the coming dilution as good news. Maybe we should look at the specific "proposed" agreement that Blackstar has with Continuation Capital. Continuation Capital is not investing anything into Blackstar. The agreement is to move more than $860K of accounts payable complete with fees of 60,200,000 shares issued for each deal with the creditors, conversion price of 42.5% off the lowest closing sale price for twenty (20) trading days, all shares exempt from registration and immediately free trading. Post# 14263 linked below goes into detail about how the accounts payables grew so quickly with the legal fees.
SorcererDiviner18
2 일 전
Might also note that Nevada is one of five states without a usury law.
While Nevada does not have a statutory cap on interest rates for commercial loans, the public policy principles embedded in usury laws and fairness doctrines provide a strong basis for challenging the 170% interest rate in this case. Courts have wide discretion to void or modify contract terms that are deemed predatory, unconscionable, or contrary to public policy, even in the absence of explicit statutory limits.
This aligns with both Nevada’s equity-focused jurisprudence and broader legal trends discouraging predatory financial practices. If BlackStar's legal team emphasizes these arguments effectively, it could strengthen their case in the Nevada Supreme Court.
What do you all think? Could public policy concerns play a significant role in the court’s decision here?
Equitable Principles and Public Policy
Nevada Constitution Article 6, Section 6:
Nevada courts have broad equitable powers to prevent unjust outcomes, even in the absence of specific statutory violations.
Text:
"The District Courts and the Supreme Court shall also have power to issue writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction and to hear and determine cases both at law and in equity."
Application:
Courts may apply these equitable powers to contracts that, while technically valid, result in unjust enrichment or outcomes that violate public policy.
Public Policy Principles Against Predatory Lending:
Contracts that exploit vulnerabilities or result in excessive gains for one party are often deemed contrary to public policy.
NRS 598A.060: Public Policy and Trade Practices:
"Contracts contrary to public policy are void and unenforceable."
This statute underscores Nevada’s commitment to fairness and the prevention of exploitative practices.
SorcererDiviner18
2 일 전
You seem to not have read my post?
We already know that procedural courts focused on enforcing the contract as written, thus why we are now in the appellate court.
In my opinion, the lower court likely focused narrowly on enforcing the contract as written, without addressing broader arguments like unconscionability, unjust enrichment, or public policy. This is common in lower courts, especially in commercial cases, as they often prioritize strict contract enforcement and assume both parties are sophisticated entities capable of negotiating fair terms.
Here’s why this might have happened and how the appeal could differ:
Contract Enforcement in Lower Courts:
Lower courts tend to prioritize the literal terms of the contract unless there is clear evidence of illegality, fraud, or procedural issues.
In commercial cases, they are often reluctant to invalidate terms unless they are blatantly oppressive or contrary to statutory law.
Reluctance to Apply Equity:
Lower courts may hesitate to invoke their equitable powers unless explicitly required, leaving broader issues like fairness or public policy to appellate courts.
Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court:
Appellate courts, like the Nevada Supreme Court, have broader jurisdiction and can consider arguments related to fairness, equity, and public policy.
In this case, BlackStar’s appeal focuses on issues such as:
Unconscionability of the 170% interest rate and stock retention.
Unjust enrichment, where GS allegedly retained more than necessary to satisfy the loan.
Bad faith, related to delays in providing payoff information and continuing litigation after full payment.
In appeals, higher courts often take a more nuanced view, especially if enforcing the contract would lead to inequitable or unjust outcomes.
What do you think? Could the Nevada Supreme Court weigh equity and fairness more heavily than the lower court?
Bubae
2 일 전
here we go again. 🙄 Post# 14388 and 14263 with links to the information for those unfamiliar with this lawsuit that is now more than a year old. Might also note that Nevada is one of five states without a usury law. Meanwhile we wait to see if the massive dilution agreement is to move more than $860K of accounts payable is viable to pay those legal fees. Where is that filing.
Bubae
Re: SorcererDiviner18 post# 14386
Sunday, October 27, 2024 6:37:41 PM
Post# 14388 of 14850
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175294813
I also have complained about that share dump but it is the purview of the SEC and not the courts in my opinion. The original GS Capital lawsuit was filed on November 6th 2023 with the Eighth Judicial District Court in Nevada. That is still ongoing with a trial date set for July 2025. Blackstar appealed the lower court decision on a stay extension for the GS Capital conversions to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Nevada reject two claims by Blackstar in denying the extension. The first is Blackstar's claim to have paid the note so the lawsuit lacks merit. GS Capital showed where Blackstar tried to pay the note off AFTER the lawsuit was filed. Second, Blackstar claimed that the venue should be changed to a district court in New York. This argument also didn't get any traction and in February the Supreme Court of Nevada denied the extension of the stay in February 2024 with the statement "When a contract is clear on its face, it will be construed from the written language and enforced as written." The questions you pose in your posts are somewhat disingenuous since they can be answered through the link you proved yourself to the Nevada Supreme Court case. For those new to this the documents are numbered to the right of each docket line item and also serve as links to those documents.Bubae
Re: None
Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:01:46 AM
Post# 14263 of 14850
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174965606&txt2find=denied%2Bprinciple
Blackstar is getting crushed with legal fees related to this stupid, stupid, stupid lawsuit. Stupid why? Because it is over the failure to deliver conversion shares in November 2023 that amounted to less than half the principle owed at the time. It was 257,701,499 million shares at what we would learn later was priced at $0.00006 a share, not a typo $0.00006, or a bit more than $15,000. The reported remaining principal balance on the GS Capital note was only $33,682. Now if GS Capital had gotten their conversions they would have made a small fortune off this while the fools who bought this drove it to a penny at the time.
SorcererDiviner18
2 일 전
It seems like we won’t get answers regarding the federal law assertions until GS Capital’s answering brief is filed. At this point, even basic transparency on dealer registration is unclear, as searches of SEC/FINRA databases yield no results. For now, I’m focusing on the state law aspects of this case.
Based on BlackStar’s opening brief, GS Capital allegedly issued a $60,000 loan with an effective 170% interest rate, collected $600,000 in repayments, and retained 20% of BlackStar’s stock (381,890,165 shares)—valued at over $1 million. BlackStar argues that this is disproportionate, unjust, and unconscionable under Nevada law. Here are key arguments and legal issues raised in the opening brief:
Key Arguments:
Excessive Interest and Unjust Enrichment:
The 170% interest rate and the retention of both the $600,000 repayment and 20% of BlackStar’s stock suggest an unjust enrichment at BlackStar’s expense.
Bad Faith in Litigation:
GS Capital allegedly delayed providing payoff information and continued litigation even after full payment of the loan.
Disproportionate Damages:
The financial gain ($600,000 + $1M in stock) compared to the loan amount ($60,000) appears extreme and raises concerns about enforceability.
Legal Principles to Watch For:
Unconscionability (NRS 104.2302):
Nevada law allows courts to refuse to enforce terms that are excessively one-sided or oppressive. The court may invalidate or modify the stock retention if deemed unconscionable.
Unjust Enrichment:
Under Nevada common law, retaining both repayment and equity could be seen as an unfair windfall beyond the value of the original loan.
Equitable Powers (Nevada Constitution Article 6):
Nevada courts have the authority to adjust contracts to ensure fairness and prevent unjust outcomes.
Bubae
3 일 전
It should be no surprise that we have new faces showing up to pump this as of yesterday. A little juice to help the walk-up could help their flip. Thursday trading bottomed out the latest dilutive sell off at 12 and 13 all day then Friday the walk-up begins again with a muscled close to $0.0016 after a opening at $0.0012. Can they get it up above $0.002 this time is the question. There have been several cycles of this activity to move the new shares now and it is clear that they are moving the restricted shares that vested at the end of June. We now have the headwinds from the latest 8K that if successful will push much more than $1 million in new dilution. The lawsuit continues to chew away at the value here. The latest press release confirms that CEO Joe has nothing new to report for this story and Blackstar is now delinquent in their reporting. That filing will be a fun read when it is finally release. My Post# 14425 linked below for the October 29th, the most recent high of $0.0029 before the sell off. Complete with the chart.
Bubae
Re: None
Thursday, November 21, 2024 6:01:14 PM
Post# 14830 of 14848
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175423373
New outstanding share count update today, this time backdated to the the 15th. looks like another 38,100,000 of the restricted shares made it into the market since the last update dropped on November 9th which was backdated to November 1st. A screen shot from that date is below. We also see the outstanding share count increase by 37,377,926 shares this time. With the 25 million shares that came off restricted with the previous update that could be a total of 63,100,000 of the 153 million shares that were issued as restricted at the end of December 2023 that were vested by the end of June. I say could be, because we do not know at this point if the 37,377,926 share increase in the OS is more shares going restricted or if CEO Joe has managed to get the section 3(a)(10) share exemptions off the ground. Either way we knew that conversion sales were taking place.Bubae
Re: None
Tuesday, October 29, 2024 12:15:02 PM
Post# 14425 of 14848
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175303375
Looks like they are promoting somewhere and found a few buyers. If nothing else Blackstar has demonstrated that they consistently are able to walk the price up to support the next share dump. The last OS back dated update of October 16th revealed that they dumped 25 million of the restricted in the previous 30 days. That resulted in a low of $0.0013 on October 18 before this walk up. If you are going to play with this observe the cycles of walk up and dump. I suspect that CEO Joe has been called out on his infomercials and is now staying silent so that catalyst that has worked in the past is questionable at this point. There is a reason why he isn't supporting these conversions in my opinion. Could be he just doesn't have the cash flow and can't pay for the promotion with promised shares at this point.
Trades for 11/22/2024
Short Squeeze
3 일 전
From Chat GBT
Corporate governance plays a critical role in shaping a company’s performance and, consequently, its shareholder value. For Blackstar (whether it refers to a specific company or hypothetical one), the implementation or enhancement of corporate governance could have several impacts on its stock price and shareholder value. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Improved Investor Confidence
• Strong corporate governance structures (e.g., independent board members, transparency, and clear accountability) build trust with investors. This can lead to a higher demand for the company’s stock, driving up the price.
• Companies with good governance practices are less likely to encounter scandals or fraud, which protects the stock price from sharp declines.
2. Better Financial Performance
• Effective governance often correlates with better decision-making and operational efficiency, which can boost financial performance and profitability.
• Improved financial results typically attract more investors, increasing the stock’s value.
3. Risk Mitigation
• Governance policies ensure compliance with laws and regulations, reducing legal and reputational risks.
• Lower risks often result in a lower cost of capital, which can positively influence the valuation and stock price.
4. Attraction of Long-Term Investors
• Institutional investors and funds prefer companies with robust governance structures. Their participation can lead to a more stable and sustained increase in share price.
5. Dividend and Shareholder Policies
• Governance frameworks often ensure fair treatment of shareholders, potentially leading to consistent dividend payouts or share buybacks, which can enhance shareholder returns and push up the stock price.
6. Market Perception and ESG Impact
• If Blackstar aligns its corporate governance with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards, it could benefit from the growing pool of ESG-focused investments. This shift could lead to a premium valuation.
Challenges to Consider:
• Implementing governance reforms may initially involve costs (e.g., hiring independent directors, audits), which might temporarily impact profits.
• Poorly executed governance initiatives could result in inefficiencies, potentially negating intended benefits.
If Blackstar lacks robust governance today, adopting and publicizing improvements in this area could be a significant catalyst for a rise in shareholder value and stock price over time.
Short Squeeze
4 일 전
Courtesy Chat GBT
A patent enabling equity trading and corporate governance on a blockchain could be extremely valuable, particularly as the market shifts towards decentralized finance (DeFi) and tokenized assets. Its valuation would depend on factors like scope, exclusivity, and market potential. Here’s an analysis:
Key Value Drivers
1. Market Opportunity
• Equity Trading Market: The global equity trading market exceeds $100 trillion in annual trading volume. Capturing even a fraction of this through blockchain solutions could yield significant revenue.
• Corporate Governance: The ability to streamline shareholder voting, proxy management, and governance actions using blockchain could revolutionize boardroom operations and save billions annually in administrative costs.
• Tokenization of Assets: With growing interest in tokenized stocks and securities, a patent enabling blockchain equity and governance functionality aligns with future trends.
2. Patent Scope
• Unique Claims: If the patent covers a novel mechanism for integrating trading and governance on a blockchain (e.g., smart contracts for shareholder voting tied to equity ownership), it could be foundational to the industry.
• Blockchain Protocols: Coverage extending across multiple blockchain technologies (e.g., Ethereum, Hyperledger, Solana) increases its applicability and value.
3. Potential Use Cases
• Institutional Use: Stock exchanges (e.g., Nasdaq, NYSE) and clearinghouses might leverage the technology for real-time settlement and governance tools.
• Private Equity and Startups: Smaller companies could use blockchain-based governance tools to streamline operations.
• Decentralized Finance (DeFi): The patent could appeal to DeFi platforms integrating tokenized stocks or governance mechanisms.
4. Competitive Edge
• If the patent creates a “moat” by preventing competitors from deploying similar blockchain solutions, its strategic value skyrockets.
Monetary Estimate
The value of this patent could range from $10 million to $1 billion or more, depending on the market segment it captures and the technological barriers it creates for competitors. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Licensing Revenue
• Annual Licensing: $1M–$50M annually, depending on adoption.
• Example: Stock exchanges and blockchain platforms may pay licensing fees to integrate the technology.
2. Strategic Acquisition
• Major players like Nasdaq, Binance, or institutional tech firms could acquire the patent outright for $50M–$500M, depending on its exclusivity and utility.
3. Market Disruption Potential
• If the patent disrupts traditional equity trading or governance systems, it could command a $500M–$1B valuation, especially if widely adopted.
Key Considerations
1. Blockchain Adoption: Adoption rates in equity markets and governance will influence the patent’s value.
2. Regulatory Compliance: Patents enabling SEC-compliant trading and governance mechanisms will have higher value.
3. Interoperability: If the patent integrates seamlessly with existing systems (e.g., custodians, exchanges, brokers), its value increases.
4. Enforceability: A well-drafted patent with enforceable claims is more valuable than one vulnerable to challenges.
Would you like a deeper dive into valuation models or potential licensing strategies?
ProfitScout
4 일 전
November 19, 2024 $BEGI News: Blockchain Technology Company BlackStar Sees Future of Digital Asset Trading
BOULDER, CO / ACCESSWIRE / November 19, 2024 / BlackStar Enterprises Group, Inc. ("BlackStar") (OTC Pink:BEGI). BlackStar CEO Joseph E. Kurczodyna believes the priority of millions of investors is to trade digital assets and crypto on the blockchain. BlackStar's goal is to facilitate the trading of all registered public companies on the blockchain as cash spot markets without shorting. BlackStar's technology invites the industry, exchanges, and dealers to trade U.S. registered common stock on the blockchain.
Mr. Kurczodyna recognized the potential of digital assets with the rise of Bitcoin in 2017, after spending three decades as a foreign currency and U.S. dollar trader. Mr. Kurczodyna realized that Bitcoin could be a world currency and shift the balance of global economic powers, including the theoretical ability to reduce deficit spending and manage the books of the largest economies using a Bitcoin hedge. From there, Mr. Kurczodyna came to believe that "with only one decentralized world currency in Bitcoin, that crypto companies, man-made coins, tokens, or blockchain applications traded as coins may have other monetary motives." Regarding Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), Mr. Kurczodyna thinks that "these types of funds helped open the investment world to trading Bitcoin as a security. Digital assets secured by exchanged traded funds send a clear signal to the investment banking world that digital assets that are registered as securities on the blockchain will trade through brokers as spot market ETFs."
Mr. Kurczodyna is also of the opinion that "most unregistered, unaudited crypto companies are trading imitations hooked to the Bitcoin movement. Many of these crypto companies or applications may disappear like the end of a chain letter. Commonsense regulation tells us that the rules and regulations created in the 1930s provide guidance for unregistered securities.Registration and vetting by the SEC with an audit protects the investing public."
Mr. Kurczodyna stated that "BlackStar's blockchain technology can facilitate the trading of U.S. registered public companies on the blockchain through the broker-dealer ecosystem. BlackStar's technology trades common shares without creating a new security through tokenization: common shares in book entry are fungible with their digital form."
BlackStar's intellectual property portfolio covers all regulated, registered equities and all forms of securities traded on the blockchain through broker-dealers.
Other Info: BlackStar Enterprise Group, Inc. (OTC PINK:BEGI)
WEBSITE: blackstareg.com
EMAIL: info@blackstareg.com
CONTACT
Bryan P Hemphill….559-359-1480
http://www.blackstareg.com/investor-relations/
More information can be found in the Company's recently filings at the SEC web site: https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=BlackStar+Enterprise&match=&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&myowner=exclude&action=getcompany.
SEC Disclaimer
This press release is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities in the United States or elsewhere. This press release may contain forward-looking statements. The words or phrases "would be," "will allow," "intends to," "will likely result," "are expected to," "will continue," "is anticipated," "estimate," "project," or similar expressions are intended to identify "forward-looking statements." Actual results could differ materially from those projected in BlackStar's ("the Company's") business plan. The creation of subsidiaries and expansion of services into new sectors should not be construed as an indication in any way whatsoever of the future value of the Company's common stock or its present or future financial condition. The Company's filings may be accessed at the SEC's Edgar system at www.sec.gov. Statements made herein are as of the date of this press release and should not be relied upon as of any subsequent date. The Company cautions readers not to place reliance on such statements. Unless otherwise required by applicable law, we do not undertake, and we specifically disclaim any obligation, to update any forward-looking statements to reflect occurrences, developments, unanticipated events or circumstances after the date of such statement.
SOURCE: BlackStar Enterprise Group, Inc.
View the original press release on accesswire.com
Bubae
4 일 전
And yet another attempt to spin the coming dilution as good news. Maybe we should look at the specific "proposed" agreement that Blackstar has with Continuation Capital. Continuation Capital is not investing anything into Blackstar. The agreement is to move more than $860K of accounts payable complete with fees of 60,200,000 shares issued for each deal with the creditors, conversion price of 42.5% off the lowest closing sale price for twenty (20) trading days, all shares exempt from registration and immediately free trading. Post# 14263 linked below goes into detail about how the accounts payables grew so quickly with the legal fees.
That is much better than a regulation "A" offering with a fixed price who's shares are also exempt from registration and immediately free trading. The continuous discount to market priced per tranche is a huge advantage getting it sold into the market to the hapless traders who aren't aware of what is going on. The 4.99% limit per tranche is hardly a problem since 4.99% of the OS could provide 90 million shares. I would imagine with the ability to reset the price continuously that they not would risk trying to move that many shares at once with such a thinly traded stock. We need the new filing to confirm that the agreement will be fully approved for execution and so far CEO Joe is in no hurry to get that released. The Q3 is currently delinquent.
Blockchain Technology Company BlackStar Secures Institutional Investor for Debt Repayment, Seeks Valuation and Eyes Revenue Possibilities Through IP Licensing
Tuesday, 05 November 2024 09:45 AM
https://www.accesswire.com/939223/blockchain-technology-company-blackstar-secures-institutional-investor-for-debt-repayment-seeks-valuation-and-eyes-revenue-possibilities-through-ip-licensing
...from certain vendors of the Company, which consist of accounts payable due from the Company.
Form 8K November 5th 2024
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001483646/000106594924000119/blackstar8k1152024.htm
On October 29, 2024, BlackStar Enterprise Group, Inc. ("BEGI", "BlackStar", or the "Company") entered into a proposed settlement for purchase of $861,539.26 of debt owed to BlackStar's creditors.
Capital to purchase debt that we owe to our creditors through direct purchase of the debts from our creditors and convert such debt into shares of our common stock at a reduction of forty-two and a half percent (42.5%) off the lowest closing sale price for twenty (20) trading days as disclosed in the Settlement Agreement prior to the date of conversion for each tranche of debt purchased. Upon closing, the Company will immediately issue 60,200,000 freely trading shares pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act to CCI.
Bubae
Re: None
Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:01:46 AM
Post# 14263 of 14307
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174965606&txt2find=payables
Blackstar is still borrowing from the so called friends and associates in Q2 but not enough to cover that cash burn. The balance sheet on page page 3 of the Q2 filing reveals a $874,101 accounts payable as of June 30th versus $358,001 as of December 31st 2023. I went back to the Q3 2023 filing and found that the accounts payable number was only $167,000.
SorcererDiviner18
4 일 전
Yup, looks good. I would say there is some built-in risk mitigation, some contingencies and milestones markers that BEGI will need to meet? First up is clearing the short term debt and other obligations. Tranche based (can't hold more than 4.99% at a given time). I'd imagine BEGI will get to work soon on the patent valuation (possible milestone marker for CC?)... and we need to see the outcome of the case. After that, assuming positive outcomes, I'd imagine they would get funded again at better terms/ more money. Maybe BEGI finds a new dance partner?
Looking at their extensive backgrounds in law, I'd say it's close to 0% chance they did not dig into this case. Relatively low risk/ extremely high reward potential for them, and they don't seem like the kind of people who fart into the wind for fun. Seeking bullseyes. They are getting in at a nice price, but it is also nice to have a bigger fish who now has a stake, and should also be watching this case very closely. The alignment and accummen is worth the dilution, imo. Networks. Trade-offs. Nothing in life is free (except this opinion), esp not for penny stock startups.
SorcererDiviner18
5 일 전
A poster here had asked if anyone had done DD on Continuation Capital, the entity providing Blackstar with funds for Debt Settlement. https://continuecap.com/about/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/blockchain-technology-company-blackstar-secures-144500783.html
I was able to easily find their webpage, unlike GS Capital Partners LLC, BEGI's previous lender (dealer?), who I have yet to get transparent information on. Nobody here seems to be able to provide that, as the only information provided was a misidentification of the entity as Goldman Sachs. SEC and FINRA sources are lacking in detailed information as well.
CC received a nice contract from Blackstar, with their ability to convert debt to equity at a deep discount. With that said, I am sure they have done the necessary DD on BEGI and current ongoings. BEGI not only needs to survive but thrive in some form or fashion for them to be able to sell the shares that they are converting. For every seller, there needs to be a buyer. To boot, this is at a time when the sentiment of the stock is probably at an all time low, due to both the OTC market being pummeled repeatedly and this seemingly silly lawsuit filed by previous lender (dealer?). My opinion is a vote of confidence.
I hope, and expect, the CEO of Blackstar has talked to leadership of CC. Below is some of their qualifications, which seems like a good match relative to everything going on with this lawsuit and corporate ongoings, such as their intention to initiate patent valuation and licensing opportunities.
Charles N. Cleland, Jr.
President, Partner, and General Counsel
As a licensed attorney in the State of Florida, and a member of the Florida Bar, Charles “Chip” Cleland serves as President and member of the Board of Directors of Continuation Capital, Inc. His extensive experience in debt and equity financing, debt recapitalization, and bridge financing, makes him ideally suited to manage internal and external legal, operational, and compliance related issues between CCAP’s public issuer clients and their creditors.
As owner and President of Charles N. Cleland, Jr., P.A., a law firm in Sarasota, Florida, Chip has served as general, corporate and litigation legal counsel for multiple private and publicly traded companies—as well as for equity fund clients—over his 30-year legal career.
He previously served as an Assistant State Attorney in the State of Florida and has extensive experience in the fields of civil and commercial litigation. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Business Communication from the Florida State University in 1987, and his Juris Doctorate from Mercer University School of Law in 1991.
Paul Winkle
Vice President & Partner
As managing partner at CCAP, Paul is responsible for business development, deal feasibility analysis, client retention, product development, and cultivating service provider relationships.
Paul has 37 years’ experience in financial services and consulting, with a strong background in sales and deal making. He has participated in dozens of IPO’s as a licensed broker while simultaneously managing five branch brokerage offices throughout the Southeast. Paul is adept at analyzing financial statements for public and private companies, and he has successfully guided many companies through direct-public and Regulation A offerings and debt recapitalization events.
Karl F. Buhl
Vice President & Partner
Karl leads strategic planning and financial modeling for Continuation Capital, as well as managing operations including sales & marketing, technology, accounting, and personnel.
He was formerly an exec at Microsoft in Redmond, Washington, where, in addition to working directly with Bill Gates, he managed groups in corporate and international marketing, channel sales, product and business development, and government affairs. As an entrepreneur, Mr. Buhl has bought and sold his own companies as well as having started several companies from scratch.
Georganne Voyles
Operations Manager
Georganne manages operations for Continuation Capital including working with CCAP’s law firm to secure legal opinion letters, calculating and managing share conversions between transfer agents and broker dealers, processing share issuance, and initiating broker deposits among other responsibilities.
Gigi brings 18-years of brokerage and financial operations experience to CCAP. She previously held NASD Series 4, Series 7, Series 24, Series 53, and Series 63 licensing as well as the titles of Chief Compliance Officer and Compliance Registered Options Principal at financial firms Kidder, Peabody & Co., Dean Witter Reynolds, and Merrill Lynch.
Her understanding of the financial and brokerage industry significantly contributes to the seamless and efficient transfer of share ownership, benefitting both CCAP and our issuer clients.
Nice cast. I will be reaching out to all of them.
Bubae
5 일 전
New outstanding share count update today, this time backdated to the the 15th. looks like another 38,100,000 of the restricted shares made it into the market since the last update dropped on November 9th which was backdated to November 1st. A screen shot from that date is below. We also see the outstanding share count increase by 37,377,926 shares this time. With the 25 million shares that came off restricted with the previous update that could be a total of 63,100,000 of the 153 million shares that were issued as restricted at the end of December 2023 that were vested by the end of June. I say could be, because we do not know at this point if the 37,377,926 share increase in the OS is more shares going restricted or if CEO Joe has managed to get the section 3(a)(10) share exemptions off the ground. Either way we knew that conversion sales were taking place.
Bubae
Re: None
Saturday, November 09, 2024 8:12:43 AM
Post# 14746 of 14829
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175357686
Noticed that the outstanding share count details tab for the OTC site was updated last night. No change in the numbers and backdated once again this time to to November 1st. Looks as if that walkup to $0.0029 on the 29th and subsequent dump to $0.0015 was to support the shares that came off the registered count and not associated with the new agreement. We found that 25 million shares came off restricted with the update of October 21st. That update of the 21st was backdated to October 16th. This is the second update this past week. I guess we will have to wait a bit longer to find out if the new agreement is currently viable of not.Bubae
Re: burner67 post# 13724
Tuesday, May 07, 2024 10:14:24 PM
Post# 13728 of 13814
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174376080
We are looking at a bit more than the 153 million shares that went restricted at the end of 2023 that will be vested by the end of June. That 153 million shares represents the 25 million issued for the media contract, 71.25 million issued financing fees for loans, and the 56.79 million issued for warrants.
Hot Features
프리미엄
브라질 증권 거래소, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, LSE 등 주요 거래소에서의 다양한 실시간 주식 시세를 모니터링합니다.
Gunner54
4 일 전
