Litigation Update - Safety Shot Authorized to Serve Notice of Action Against Capybara Research and Igor Appelboom by Public Disclosure and Press Release Pursuant to Court Order
- None.
- None.
Insights
In the context of Safety Shot, Inc.'s lawsuit against Capybara Research and Igor Appelboom, a legal expert would focus on the implications of the alleged market manipulation and defamation. Market manipulation, particularly through short and distort strategies, can have significant legal repercussions, including SEC investigations and criminal charges. Defamation claims, especially when they impact public companies, can lead to substantial damages if the plaintiff proves actual malice and material harm to reputation.
The legal process of serving notice, as described in this case, is not just a procedural formality; it is a critical step that ensures defendants are aware of the allegations and can prepare a defense. The innovative approach of serving notice via a press release and SEC filing, approved by a senior judge, underscores the adaptability of the legal system to address evasive defendants in the digital age. This could set a precedent for future cases where traditional service methods are ineffective.
The sharp 37.03% decline in Safety Shot, Inc.'s share price on the day the article was published is a stark reminder of the power of information—whether accurate or not—over market sentiment and stock valuations. Financial analysts would scrutinize the short-selling activities of Capybara and Appelboom, considering the timing and content of their publications relative to their disclosed positions. The subsequent legal action taken by Safety Shot, Inc. could signal to investors the company's commitment to defending its valuation and reputation, potentially influencing investor confidence and future stock performance.
It is also noteworthy to consider the broader market implications of such alleged manipulative practices. If proven, they could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny on short sellers and potentially prompt changes in market regulations or enforcement actions to protect investors from similar schemes. This could have a ripple effect on trading strategies and market dynamics.
From a market research perspective, the case between Safety Shot, Inc. and Capybara Research highlights the vulnerability of companies to targeted attacks that can significantly alter market perception. The incident could lead to a broader discussion within the investment community about the credibility of research firms and the need for due diligence in evaluating the motivations behind negative reports.
The actions taken by Safety Shot, Inc. to serve notice through unconventional means also reflect the evolving nature of corporate communications and legal strategy in the digital era. How companies respond to such crises can influence their brand reputation and investor relations, making crisis management strategies an essential component of corporate governance.
JUPITER, FL, Jan. 16, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- On December 5, 2023, Safety Shot, Inc. (Nasdaq: SHOT) (“SHOT” or the “Company”) announced that it filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Safety Shot, Inc. v. Capybara Research et. al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10728-JSR (the “Action”), against Capybara Research (“Capybara”), A firm that Safety Shot alleges was created for solely to lend “credibility” to its malicious and defamatory articles purposefully designed to negatively impact the share prices of publicly traded companies in which it holds short positions, and its previously anonymous owner and operator responsible for publishing the malicious and defamatory article authored and published on November 22, 2023 which attacked the Company and its directors leading to a
After commencing the Action, the Company’s counsel at The Basile Law Firm, P.C. discovered the true identity of the individual responsible for the article published on Capybara’s website and X (f/k/a Twitter) account to be an individual living in Brazil named Igor Appelboom (“Appelboom”). Appelboom previously operated an X account under his own name to which he posted content relating to the short selling of various securities.
Capybara and Appelboom take short positions in publicly trading companies and release fraudulent, disparaging reports in order to drive the company’s stock price down for their own financial benefit. Due to the short position Capybara disclosed in the article, Capybara and the previously anonymous owner and operator, Appelboom, significantly benefited from the decline in the Company’s share price at the expense of the Company’s shareholders. The Company believes this is criminal behavior and will continue to do what it can to protect the interests of its shareholders.
On December 22, 2023, the Company filed a motion to alternatively serve the Company’s summons and complaint upon Capybara and Appelboom by email. On December 26 2023, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, entered an Order granting the Company’s motion. The Company’s counsel attempted to serve Capybara and Appelboom by email, however, in response to the motion and Order, Capybara and Appelboom have undertaken steps to intentionally evade service by deleting their respective email addresses.
Because of the evasive behavior exhibited by Capybara and Appelboom. That Safety Shot believes was an effort to avoid liability for their actions and preserve whatever anonymity they believe they have left, on January 8, 2024, the Company was required to serve a second motion for alternative service in which the Company sought permission to serve Capybara and Appelboom through their respective X accounts, through Capybara’s website’s contact page, by newspaper publication and through a public disclosure and press release. In response to the Company’s second motion, and consistent with its efforts to evade service, Capybara removed the contact page from its website and Appelboom deleted his X account. Both of these actions were taken in an effort to further evade service.
On January 10, 2024, in a historic, first-of-its-kind order, The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff granted the Company’s second motion permitting the Company to serve notice of the Action upon through this press release and associated Form 8-K filed on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR database.
Pursuant to the Order of The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered on January 10, 2024 (ECF 24), in the matter of Safety Shot, Inc. v. Capybara Research et. al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10728-JSR, this press release, the Form 8-K filed on January 11, 2024 and the exhibits to the Form 8-K containing the Company’s summons, complaint and the Court’s Order, hereby provides the Constitutional requirement of actual notice of the Action to Defendants Capybara Research and Igor Appelboom pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
About Safety Shot
Safety Shot, a wellness and functional beverage company, is set to launch Safety Shot, the first patented beverage on Earth that helps people feel better faster by reducing blood alcohol content and boosting clarity. Safety Shot will be available for retail purchase in the first week of December 2023 at www.DrinkSafetyShot.com and www.Amazon.com. The Company plans to launch business-to-business sales of Safety Shot to distributors, retailers, restaurants, and bars in the first quarter of 2024. Safety Shot plans to spin off legacy assets from its Jupiter Wellness business to unlock value for shareholders.
Media Contact:
Phone: 904-477-2306
Email: Emily@PanatelidesPR.com
Investor Contact:
Phone: 561-244-7100
Email: investors@safetyshotholdings.com
FAQ
What is the ticker symbol for Safety Shot, Inc.?
What legal action did Safety Shot, Inc. take against Capybara Research?
What was the impact of Capybara Research's articles on Safety Shot, Inc.?
What steps were taken to serve Capybara and Appelboom after the lawsuit was filed?
What is the significance of the court's order in the matter of Safety Shot, Inc. v. Capybara Research et. al.?
