YuuZoo Networks   

Yuuzoo Next Alibaba Fast -Grow E-commerce

This company must be suspend to prevent more innocent ppl buy into. Even shorties also can get squeeze cos this is a stock play by syndicate.

 

He's definitely a current employee.

Lt_investor      ( Date: 06-May-2017 11:30) Posted: You definitely a current employee. InvestSG      ( Date: 06-May-2017 11:28) Posted: you definitely must be a former employee.

 

You definitely a current employee.

InvestSG      ( Date: 06-May-2017 11:28) Posted: you definitely must be a former employee. bigdragon966      ( Date: 06-May-2017 10:37) Posted: The next article regarding yuuzoo: ========================== Law360, New York (July 26, 2016, 8:18 PM EDT) -- Investors in Yuuzoo Corp. Ltd. have urged a New York federal judge to reject the social media company&rsquo s bid to disqualify McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC from representing the investors as they pursue securities fraud claims, saying that Yuuzoo stretched the truth in its request.  Yuuzoo had asked for disqualification because it wants attorney Kenneth Sussmane to testify about an October 2014 meeting with Yuuzoo chairman Thomas Zilliacus. But Hecklerco LLC and fellow investors, who claim Yuuzoo executives and others used shell corporations to illegally sell company shares and report nonexistent revenue, said that Sussmane and his firm needn&rsquo t be disqualified since nothing from the 2014 meeting requires his testimony &mdash a point investors say is supported by Zilliacus&rsquo affidavit. &ldquo The Zilliacus account of the October 2014 meeting fails to raise any possibility Mr. Sussmane is a necessary witness, as Mr. Zilliacus was not willing to make the false statements under oath that defendant&rsquo s counsel was willing to make in defendant&rsquo s brief,&rdquo the investors wrote in a Monday opposition brief. Yuuzoo had claimed that Sussmane met with Zilliacus in October 2014 and said his clients would file a suit against the company unless a settlement could be reached. Yuuzoo claimed that during that meeting, Zilliacus admitted that the case had no factual basis and only existed in light of Yuuzoo&rsquo s &ldquo deep pocket.&rdquo The investors on Monday said that that account is inaccurate, reflected in the affidavit of Zilliacus. Even if it were true, they said, Sussmane was merely offering his opinion. &ldquo Defendants fail to identify a single fact about which Sussmane would be competent to testify,&rdquo the investors wrote. &ldquo Even if the alleged statements were made ... they would be mere statements of Mr. Sussmane&rsquo s view of the case.&rdquo Hecklerco claimed in July 2015 that Yuuzoo and its management knowingly made false statements that duped the investors into both buying tens of thousands of shares of Yuuzoo stock and making a $245,000 loan to the founder and former president of Yuuzoo, Ron Creeve. The investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more than $380 million, inflated its sales figures and failed to tell investors that accounting irregularities had prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company&rsquo s bid to trade publicly in the U.S. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, which arranged and negotiated the loan, is accused of breach of fiduciary duty by the investors. Hecklerco is represented by Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC. Yuuzoo is represented by Marc Alan Pergament of Weinberg Kaley Gross & Pergament LLP. Wells Fargo Advisors is represented by Toby S. Soli of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The case is Hecklerco LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC et al., case number 1:15-cv-05779, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. --E

 

you definitely must be a former employee.

bigdragon966      ( Date: 06-May-2017 10:37) Posted: The next article regarding yuuzoo: ========================== Law360, New York (July 26, 2016, 8:18 PM EDT) -- Investors in Yuuzoo Corp. Ltd. have urged a New York federal judge to reject the social media company&rsquo s bid to disqualify McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC from representing the investors as they pursue securities fraud claims, saying that Yuuzoo stretched the truth in its request.  Yuuzoo had asked for disqualification because it wants attorney Kenneth Sussmane to testify about an October 2014 meeting with Yuuzoo chairman Thomas Zilliacus. But Hecklerco LLC and fellow investors, who claim Yuuzoo executives and others used shell corporations to illegally sell company shares and report nonexistent revenue, said that Sussmane and his firm needn&rsquo t be disqualified since nothing from the 2014 meeting requires his testimony &mdash a point investors say is supported by Zilliacus&rsquo affidavit. &ldquo The Zilliacus account of the October 2014 meeting fails to raise any possibility Mr. Sussmane is a necessary witness, as Mr. Zilliacus was not willing to make the false statements under oath that defendant&rsquo s counsel was willing to make in defendant&rsquo s brief,&rdquo the investors wrote in a Monday opposition brief. Yuuzoo had claimed that Sussmane met with Zilliacus in October 2014 and said his clients would file a suit against the company unless a settlement could be reached. Yuuzoo claimed that during that meeting, Zilliacus admitted that the case had no factual basis and only existed in light of Yuuzoo&rsquo s &ldquo deep pocket.&rdquo The investors on Monday said that that account is inaccurate, reflected in the affidavit of Zilliacus. Even if it were true, they said, Sussmane was merely offering his opinion. &ldquo Defendants fail to identify a single fact about which Sussmane would be competent to testify,&rdquo the investors wrote. &ldquo Even if the alleged statements were made ... they would be mere statements of Mr. Sussmane&rsquo s view of the case.&rdquo Hecklerco claimed in July 2015 that Yuuzoo and its management knowingly made false statements that duped the investors into both buying tens of thousands of shares of Yuuzoo stock and making a $245,000 loan to the founder and former president of Yuuzoo, Ron Creeve. The investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more than $380 million, inflated its sales figures and failed to tell investors that accounting irregularities had prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company&rsquo s bid to trade publicly in the U.S. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, which arranged and negotiated the loan, is accused of breach of fiduciary duty by the investors. Hecklerco is represented by Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC. Yuuzoo is represented by Marc Alan Pergament of Weinberg Kaley Gross & Pergament LLP. Wells Fargo Advisors is represented by Toby S. Soli of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The case is Hecklerco LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC et al., case number 1:15-cv-05779, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. --E

 

Pot calling the kettle black. Investsg, your own account was setup few days ago purely to defend this stock. You have no other stocks coverage except yuuzoo. Disgruntled employees may not be misleading , it's called whistle blowing. By same token, does your more than obvious posts of yuuzoo posts make you a happy employee setting up an account to please your boss. So don't be quick to judge others. Judge yourself too.

InvestSG      ( Date: 06-May-2017 10:59) Posted: WILL THE REAL INVESTORS PLEASE STAND UP Friends, Countrymen, Fellow investors, I would like us to take careful note when digesting information that is spewed in this forum. Our take should be one that will make sure we make a sound decision. This yuuzoo thread is one of the most viewed thread reaching almost 1 million views. That shows people are consistently watching this thread. That i find is good news. Now the bad news is, in this thread, i do suspect there are people who created an account just to sink this company.  And what we as investors should know is who these ppl are. Because if they are fellow investors, maybe we can take their inputs with a pich of salt. But if they are former, disgruntled employees, then the information will be misleading. We need proper information plus actual sentiments to aid our decisions. Not information from people who tio sack by company (for any reason) and they venting their grieviences by giving inputs that are negatively charged.

 

I've visited Yuuzoo's website and took a brief glance. I would expect to get basic understanding of her business to encourage me to read more - such as digging into her annual reports and financial statements. However, I'd stopped at the website level because I didn't understand even though I'm quite familiar with digital marketing.

Can someone be kind enough to enlighten me what their business is all about? Is it a community platform similar to what free online community software can achieve? Who are the target audience - gamers?

I'm very confused.

 

It' s very obvious from their posts ...

There are more worse counters than Yuuzoo,

yet I never see them make noises over there.

 

WILL THE REAL INVESTORS PLEASE STAND UP

Friends, Countrymen, Fellow investors,

I would like us to take careful note when digesting information that is spewed in this forum. Our take should be one that will make sure we make a sound decision. This yuuzoo thread is one of the most viewed thread reaching almost 1 million views. That shows people are consistently watching this thread. That i find is good news. Now the bad news is, in this thread, i do suspect there are people who created an account just to sink this company.  And what we as investors should know is who these ppl are. Because if they are fellow investors, maybe we can take their inputs with a pich of salt. But if they are former, disgruntled employees, then the information will be misleading. We need proper information plus actual sentiments to aid our decisions. Not information from people who tio sack by company (for any reason) and they venting their grieviences by giving inputs that are negatively charged.

 

Shit, if this case proves correct then the RTO numbers are in question. The shit is begining to float.

bigdragon966      ( Date: 06-May-2017 10:37) Posted: The next article regarding yuuzoo: ========================== Law360, New York (July 26, 2016, 8:18 PM EDT) -- Investors in Yuuzoo Corp. Ltd. have urged a New York federal judge to reject the social media company&rsquo s bid to disqualify McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC from representing the investors as they pursue securities fraud claims, saying that Yuuzoo stretched the truth in its request.  Yuuzoo had asked for disqualification because it wants attorney Kenneth Sussmane to testify about an October 2014 meeting with Yuuzoo chairman Thomas Zilliacus. But Hecklerco LLC and fellow investors, who claim Yuuzoo executives and others used shell corporations to illegally sell company shares and report nonexistent revenue, said that Sussmane and his firm needn&rsquo t be disqualified since nothing from the 2014 meeting requires his testimony &mdash a point investors say is supported by Zilliacus&rsquo affidavit. &ldquo The Zilliacus account of the October 2014 meeting fails to raise any possibility Mr. Sussmane is a necessary witness, as Mr. Zilliacus was not willing to make the false statements under oath that defendant&rsquo s counsel was willing to make in defendant&rsquo s brief,&rdquo the investors wrote in a Monday opposition brief. Yuuzoo had claimed that Sussmane met with Zilliacus in October 2014 and said his clients would file a suit against the company unless a settlement could be reached. Yuuzoo claimed that during that meeting, Zilliacus admitted that the case had no factual basis and only existed in light of Yuuzoo&rsquo s &ldquo deep pocket.&rdquo The investors on Monday said that that account is inaccurate, reflected in the affidavit of Zilliacus. Even if it were true, they said, Sussmane was merely offering his opinion. &ldquo Defendants fail to identify a single fact about which Sussmane would be competent to testify,&rdquo the investors wrote. &ldquo Even if the alleged statements were made ... they would be mere statements of Mr. Sussmane&rsquo s view of the case.&rdquo Hecklerco claimed in July 2015 that Yuuzoo and its management knowingly made false statements that duped the investors into both buying tens of thousands of shares of Yuuzoo stock and making a $245,000 loan to the founder and former president of Yuuzoo, Ron Creeve. The investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more than $380 million, inflated its sales figures and failed to tell investors that accounting irregularities had prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company&rsquo s bid to trade publicly in the U.S. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, which arranged and negotiated the loan, is accused of breach of fiduciary duty by the investors. Hecklerco is represented by Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC. Yuuzoo is represented by Marc Alan Pergament of Weinberg Kaley Gross & Pergament LLP. Wells Fargo Advisors is represented by Toby S. Soli of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The case is Hecklerco LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC et al., case number 1:15-cv-05779, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. --E

 

The next article regarding yuuzoo:

==========================

Law360, New York (July 26, 2016, 8:18 PM EDT) -- Investors in Yuuzoo Corp. Ltd. have urged a New York federal judge to reject the social media company&rsquo s bid to disqualify McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC from representing the investors as they pursue securities fraud claims, saying that Yuuzoo stretched the truth in its request. 
Yuuzoo had asked for disqualification because it wants attorney Kenneth Sussmane to testify about an October 2014 meeting with Yuuzoo chairman Thomas Zilliacus. But Hecklerco LLC and fellow investors, who claim Yuuzoo executives and others used shell corporations to illegally sell company shares and report nonexistent revenue, said that Sussmane and his firm needn&rsquo t be disqualified since nothing from the 2014 meeting requires his testimony &mdash a point investors say is supported by Zilliacus&rsquo affidavit.

&ldquo The Zilliacus account of the October 2014 meeting fails to raise any possibility Mr. Sussmane is a necessary witness, as Mr. Zilliacus was not willing to make the false statements under oath that defendant&rsquo s counsel was willing to make in defendant&rsquo s brief,&rdquo the investors wrote in a Monday opposition brief.

Yuuzoo had claimed that Sussmane met with Zilliacus in October 2014 and said his clients would file a suit against the company unless a settlement could be reached. Yuuzoo claimed that during that meeting, Zilliacus admitted that the case had no factual basis and only existed in light of Yuuzoo&rsquo s &ldquo deep pocket.&rdquo

The investors on Monday said that that account is inaccurate, reflected in the affidavit of Zilliacus. Even if it were true, they said, Sussmane was merely offering his opinion.

&ldquo Defendants fail to identify a single fact about which Sussmane would be competent to testify,&rdquo the investors wrote. &ldquo Even if the alleged statements were made ... they would be mere statements of Mr. Sussmane&rsquo s view of the case.&rdquo

Hecklerco claimed in July 2015 that Yuuzoo and its management knowingly made false statements that duped the investors into both buying tens of thousands of shares of Yuuzoo stock and making a $245,000 loan to the founder and former president of Yuuzoo, Ron Creeve.

The investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more than $380 million, inflated its sales figures and failed to tell investors that accounting irregularities had prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company&rsquo s bid to trade publicly in the U.S.

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, which arranged and negotiated the loan, is accused of breach of fiduciary duty by the investors.

Hecklerco is represented by Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC.

Yuuzoo is represented by Marc Alan Pergament of Weinberg Kaley Gross & Pergament LLP.

Wells Fargo Advisors is represented by Toby S. Soli of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Hecklerco LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC et al., case number 1:15-cv-05779, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

--E

 

Thanks for sharing. Big scandal and lawsuit yet No Disclosure by Yuuzoo. Why SGX don't summon the Chairman for coffee?

bigdragon966      ( Date: 06-May-2017 09:33) Posted: the whole article: ======================= Law360, Los Angeles (June 7, 2016, 7:52 PM EDT) -- Counsel for investors of social media company Yuuzoo Corp. Ltd. should be disqualified for suing the company and its chairman despite knowing they were not involved in an underlying securities matter, Yuuzoo said in documents filed in New York federal court Tuesday. In a letter sent to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero asking for a conference to be held on the matter, Yuuzoo said McCue Sussmane & Zapfel should be disqualified as plaintiffs&rsquo counsel in a securities fraud matter in which Hecklerco LLC and other investors claim they were duped into giving a $245,000 loan to the founder and former president of Yuuzoo, Ron Creevey, and others with 300,000 Yuuzoo shares put up as collateral. Yuuzoo claims that an attorney for the investors, Kenneth Sussmane, met with Yuuzoo chairman Thomas Zilliacus in October 2014 and said his clients would file a suit against the company unless a settlement could be reached. Yuuzoo said that since it intends to have Sussmane testify about that meeting, the attorney and his firm should be disqualified. &ldquo The Yuuzoo defendants intend to call Mr. Sussmane as a witness to testify regarding his October 21, 2014 meeting with Mr. Zilliacus, during which Mr. Sussmane acknowledged, among other things, that the Yuuzoo defendants had no involvement in the transactions underlying this action,&rdquo the letter states. &ldquo There can be no question that Mr. Sussmane' s statements to Mr. Zilliacus bear on a significant issue of fact and would be prejudicial to plaintiffs.&rdquo Sussmane told Law360 on Tuesday that Yuuzoo&rsquo s disqualification bid was &ldquo a lightweight litigation maneuver&rdquo and a procedural tangent. &ldquo After failing to receive permission to make a motion to dismiss, Yuuzoo defendants are making this motion to gain a perceived tactical advantage and to delay the discovery,&rdquo said Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC. Representatives for the other parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. In the underlying case alleging violations of securities laws, common law fraud and breach of contract, Hecklerco claims that Creevy, Yuuzoo and others knowingly made false statements that induced the investors to make the loan and also buy tens of thousands of shares of Yuuzoo stock. Among the numerous allegations laid out in the complaint, the investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more than $380 million, &ldquo inflated&rdquo its sales figures and never informed the investors that accounting irregularities had prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company&rsquo s bid to trade publicly in the U.S. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, which arranged and negotiated the loan, is accused of breach of fiduciary duty by the investors. Hecklerco is represented by Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC. Yuuzoo is represented by Marc Alan Pergament of Weinberg Kaley Gross & Pergament LLP. Wells Fargo Advisors is represented by Toby S. Soli of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The case is Hecklerco LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC et al., case number 1:15-cv-05779, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. jm2110      ( Date: 06-May-2017 09:13) Posted: It seems if you click on the direct link   https://www.law360.com/articles/804648/social-media-co-floats-counsel-dq-bid-in-securities-row   You may need special access to see the full details of the case in the US however if you search for the article through Google you can see the whole thing. Anyway for ease here is the interesting paragraph for everyone here:   " Among the numerous allegations laid out in the complaint, the investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more that $380, inflated its sales figures and never informed the investors that accounting irregularities   had prompted the US Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company' s bid to trade publicly in the US."

 

If a conman tries to sell you for $1, then 50c, then 20c, and now 7c. You won't say heng ah, now I only pay 7c to get conned. You run!

mogambo      ( Date: 05-May-2017 17:10) Posted: Bro Stellar, as an investor there is no hard and fast rule at which price points to invest... Now that the risk is very very low and the share pricing has approached the   Earnings per Share this is just   a lottery ticket.. Just like traders have a systematic trading plan with   stop losses... You can develop a systematic investment plan to invest with your monthly savings to go long,   every quarter of the year you have a high and a low for a scrip .. Just look out for the lows and keep investing regularly and systemically   once you have 20 to 50% profits on a a postitional trade you can take profits and run you free shares for long term.   My plan may not work for all .. you see what is good for you and determine a long term investment plan for your self.   Confidence can be gained   Just dont put stop losses when the risk is low and the rewards are huge... also dont buy huge quantities always split you positions to your investment savings plans. Thank you. very much I am just sharing my 2 cents of free stock markets knowledge I possess through my Fundo / Techno investment plans I strategise myself.   I work for my self I dont work for any fund houses or investment bankers.  Stellar      ( Date: 05-May-2017 16:42) Posted: BRO MOGAMBO, FROM YOUR POST IVE OBSERVED, U ARE NO SMALL FLIES. IF U DONT MIND ME GUESSING, U ARE FM A MID TO BIG FUND HOUSE / INSITUTION / BANKERS, ABT 1200 MILES NW OFF SGP. I STILL HV FAITH IN THIS COUNTER, JUST WATCHING, WAITING FOR THE DUSTS TO SETTLE. MAY TAKE A WHILE TO REBUILD CONFIDENTS. FORGIVE ME IF I AM WRONG.

 

On the contrary, I like what I saw in Old Chang Kee management.

One of its "...directors" was " involved " in Bill Ng case. Immediately they gave an announcement to SGX to inform the status. Thus its shareholders can be aware too.

Old Chang Kee ~ well done.

huangyuanhe      ( Date: 06-May-2017 09:39) Posted: Big Question here : Why wasn't this disclosed to SGX and yuuzoo ' s shareholders before? While one enjoys the listing benefits it brings, listed companies must also oblige to SGX listing rules and regulations, right ? Stanton      ( Date: 06-May-2017 09:18) Posted: Wow, this lawsuit involves over inflated sales figures and accounting irregularities. Consistent with BT report why FC doesn't agree with the chairman and call it quits. Jialat leow.

 

I hate to say this.... it's gonna be ugly. Got to halt it on Monday...and clarify...... it will spiral very southwards joining BALI league.

 

Big Question here :

Why wasn't this disclosed to SGX and yuuzoo ' s shareholders before?

While one enjoys the listing benefits it brings, listed companies must also oblige to SGX listing rules and regulations, right ?

Stanton      ( Date: 06-May-2017 09:18) Posted: Wow, this lawsuit involves over inflated sales figures and accounting irregularities. Consistent with BT report why FC doesn't agree with the chairman and call it quits. Jialat leow. jm2110      ( Date: 06-May-2017 09:13) Posted: It seems if you click on the direct link   https://www.law360.com/articles/804648/social-media-co-floats-counsel-dq-bid-in-securities-row   You may need special access to see the full details of the case in the US however if you search for the article through Google you can see the whole thing. Anyway for ease here is the interesting paragraph for everyone here:   " Among the numerous allegations laid out in the complaint, the investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more that $380, inflated its sales figures and never informed the investors that accounting irregularities   had prompted the US Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company' s bid to trade publicly in the US."

 

Good opportunity to short on monday. Let short this company to 0 value.

 

O la la!   Better suspend the trading of Yuuzoo, or else on Mon the stock price will free fall.   Do you notice the logo of Yuuzoo looks like in horror movie with a bloody hand screaming for help?   This Sat & Sun will be sleepless nights for Yuuzzo shareholders, but that' s the consequence of itchy hand.  

 

 

the whole article:

=======================

Law360, Los Angeles (June 7, 2016, 7:52 PM EDT) -- Counsel for investors of social media company Yuuzoo Corp. Ltd. should be disqualified for suing the company and its chairman despite knowing they were not involved in an underlying securities matter, Yuuzoo said in documents filed in New York federal court Tuesday.
In a letter sent to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero asking for a conference to be held on the matter, Yuuzoo said McCue Sussmane & Zapfel should be disqualified as plaintiffs&rsquo counsel in a securities fraud matter in which Hecklerco LLC and other investors claim they were duped into giving a $245,000 loan to the founder and former president of Yuuzoo, Ron Creevey, and others with 300,000 Yuuzoo shares put up as collateral.

Yuuzoo claims that an attorney for the investors, Kenneth Sussmane, met with Yuuzoo chairman Thomas Zilliacus in October 2014 and said his clients would file a suit against the company unless a settlement could be reached. Yuuzoo said that since it intends to have Sussmane testify about that meeting, the attorney and his firm should be disqualified.

&ldquo The Yuuzoo defendants intend to call Mr. Sussmane as a witness to testify regarding his October 21, 2014 meeting with Mr. Zilliacus, during which Mr. Sussmane acknowledged, among other things, that the Yuuzoo defendants had no involvement in the transactions underlying this action,&rdquo the letter states. &ldquo There can be no question that Mr. Sussmane' s statements to Mr. Zilliacus bear on a significant issue of fact and would be prejudicial to plaintiffs.&rdquo

Sussmane told Law360 on Tuesday that Yuuzoo&rsquo s disqualification bid was &ldquo a lightweight litigation maneuver&rdquo and a procedural tangent.

&ldquo After failing to receive permission to make a motion to dismiss, Yuuzoo defendants are making this motion to gain a perceived tactical advantage and to delay the discovery,&rdquo said Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC.

Representatives for the other parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

In the underlying case alleging violations of securities laws, common law fraud and breach of contract, Hecklerco claims that Creevy, Yuuzoo and others knowingly made false statements that induced the investors to make the loan and also buy tens of thousands of shares of Yuuzoo stock.

Among the numerous allegations laid out in the complaint, the investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more than $380 million, &ldquo inflated&rdquo its sales figures and never informed the investors that accounting irregularities had prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company&rsquo s bid to trade publicly in the U.S.

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, which arranged and negotiated the loan, is accused of breach of fiduciary duty by the investors.

Hecklerco is represented by Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC.

Yuuzoo is represented by Marc Alan Pergament of Weinberg Kaley Gross & Pergament LLP.

Wells Fargo Advisors is represented by Toby S. Soli of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Hecklerco LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC et al., case number 1:15-cv-05779, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

jm2110      ( Date: 06-May-2017 09:13) Posted: It seems if you click on the direct link   https://www.law360.com/articles/804648/social-media-co-floats-counsel-dq-bid-in-securities-row   You may need special access to see the full details of the case in the US however if you search for the article through Google you can see the whole thing. Anyway for ease here is the interesting paragraph for everyone here:   " Among the numerous allegations laid out in the complaint, the investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more that $380, inflated its sales figures and never informed the investors that accounting irregularities   had prompted the US Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company' s bid to trade publicly in the US."

 

Wow, this lawsuit involves over inflated sales figures and accounting irregularities. Consistent with BT report why FC doesn't agree with the chairman and call it quits. Jialat leow.

jm2110      ( Date: 06-May-2017 09:13) Posted: It seems if you click on the direct link   https://www.law360.com/articles/804648/social-media-co-floats-counsel-dq-bid-in-securities-row   You may need special access to see the full details of the case in the US however if you search for the article through Google you can see the whole thing. Anyway for ease here is the interesting paragraph for everyone here:   " Among the numerous allegations laid out in the complaint, the investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more that $380, inflated its sales figures and never informed the investors that accounting irregularities   had prompted the US Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company' s bid to trade publicly in the US."

 

" Among the numerous allegations laid out in the complaint, the investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more that $380, inflated its sales figures and never informed the investors that accounting irregularities   had prompted the US Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the company' s bid to trade publicly in the US."