Current Lawsuits Against Retail Popcorn Project Heist:
Mrs. Rose Izzo, along with Council, filed a Supreme Court Appeal of the Delaware order.
Mrs. Rose Izzo Supreme Court Argument on May 98 2024: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR5Ba1nyVtA
The Plaintiff divided the parties into two groups: the Optimists, consisting of Mrs. Izzo and the Objectors, and the Pessimists, which included the Board, Alleghany, Franchi, and those who shared the same vision with them.
Furthermore, they argued that Franchi's first Affidavit falsely claimed ownership of shares during the period of harm. When Mrs. Izzo discovered and questioned this, a second Affidavit was filed. For an insightful read, check out "The Izzo Supreme Court Appeal."
Ted Kittila, Objector Rose Izzo’s attorney, indicated that oral arguments for the appeal has been calendared and is slated for May 8th 2024 out in Dover.
Alex Smith and Jordan Affholter vs Citigroup Global Markets Inc et al:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/50847494/Affholter_v_Citigroup_Global_Markets_Inc_et_al
Nov 27 2023, Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 37 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to January 9, 2024. AMC Entertainment, Antara Capital, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Mudrick Capital and Susquehanna International Group answers due 1/9/2024.
Donnahue George vs Citadel Ken Griffin SEC
or: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/41429816/George_v_Griffin_et_al
The Defendants, in collusion, engaged in conduct aimed at manipulating the market and controlling stock prices to the detriment of the Plaintiff and other retail investors.
Allegedly, the Defendants established a private Dark pool, including Citadel Connect, for the purpose of manipulating security and derivative prices. This was purportedly done with apparent regulatory leniency from the SEC, FNRA, and DTCC.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants engaged in substantive RICO violations, including counterfeiting and wire fraud, resulting in monetary losses for the Plaintiff.
The abusive shorting activities, according to the Plaintiff, are part of a coordinated business plan by a consortium of hedge funds, prime brokers, and market makers, with alleged governmental inaction.
LEGAL CLAIMS
The Plaintiff asserts violations of the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, claiming that the Defendants have an illegal monopoly on the market, with regulatory bodies turning a blind eye.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks relief for the monetary losses incurred due to the alleged actions of the Defendants. This includes damages, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate legal remedies.
* The AMCProjectPopcorn team operates independently and is not directly involved in any of the above legal matters unless specifically noted. Nonetheless, any victory in court reinforces our shared mission and lays a solid groundwork for obtaining justice, be it as individual plaintiffs or a cohesive group. In light of this, we wholeheartedly back Al and Jordan's efforts and are keenly observing the developments in their case.
It's important to highlight that as we advance with the Share Count initiative, we might contemplate aligning with a lawsuit as a collective or explore launching a separate legal action should the situation warrant. At this juncture, our foremost focus remains the Share Count, with the goal of realizing comprehensive float ownership. Achieving this would bolster any subsequent legal action we undertake as a group, amplifying our probability of restitution and ensuring justice for the losses we endured.
Douglas Miller, along with Sandra L Miller, has filed a lawsuit against AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc:
Case can be found at Miller vs AMC. in the Delaware State Court of Chancery (Case No. 2023-1259). The case, filed on December 18, 2023, involves a complaint for the inspection of books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL).
- Under Delaware law, stockholders have the right to inspect corporate books and records for a "proper purpose" reasonably related to their interests as stockholders. This includes investigating potential wrongdoing or mismanagement within the corporation. The Delaware Supreme Court has held that a stockholder who has a "credible basis" to investigate potential wrongdoing or mismanagement does not need to identify a specific intended use or "end" for the information requested. Additionally, the stockholder need not show, as a matter of law, that the potential wrongdoing is actionable. A credible basis to suspect possible wrongdoing or mismanagement is sufficient.
- In such cases, if a Delaware corporation refuses to permit compliance with the demand within 5 business days, the stockholder or director may file an action with the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel the corporation to permit inspection of the requested books and records. The Delaware Court of Chancery is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not the person seeking inspection is entitled to the inspection sought. These actions are summary proceedings and are litigated at a faster pace than non-expedited actions. Narrow and targeted discovery is permitted, and the trials are often more akin to an “evidentiary hearing” given the narrow scope of issues being litigated.