when I go my bank and I sign different they ask me try again
Your bank's rules about signature matching in order to prevent fraud are up to your bank. But that has nothing to do with whether someone intends a mark to be their signature. Clearly, these are all notarized signatures, and so the signatories had to present suitable ID to the notary. If none of them are denying it is their signature, then there is no problem.
I'm not sure why there is such confidence that the court would grant the TRO. First off, the fact that the hearing was promptly scheduled means nothing. TRO's are generally scheduled as soon as possible. In the event the court determines it was not worthy of emergency relief, then that is a problem for the party seeking one, but scheduling hearings on TRO's as soon as possible is the normal procedure.
Secondly, the mere fact that a business has ripped someone off is not itself a reason for a court, in a lawsuit over said theft, to generally enjoin the activities of that business. Obviously, Epik and Royce are going to argue that they are trying to get the plaintiff paid, and now the plaintiff is trying to stop that. Believe it or not, the judge has not slogged through 294 pages of Namepros and doesn't really know or care much beyond the fact that Epik has largely admitted that it took this guy's money. This isn't a bankruptcy proceeding, in which the debtor needs the approval of the court and creditors to engage in sales of assets. Again, if a business owes you money, and you want to stop them from selling assets, then you file an involuntary bankruptcy petition in order to make that happen. I would be surprised if the judge doesn't ask the plaintiff why he didn't do that instead.
I have no idea what the outcome of the hearing or the petition will be. Most of the time, a judge will conclude the hearing by taking the arguments under advisement and stating that an order will issue. But it would not surprise me if the judge said, "You want money? They're trying to sell assets to get you money. You want me to stop them?"
It's just hard to see a judge getting into what amounts to a piecemeal receivership over any scheme the defendant concocts to come up with the money claimed by the plaintiff. Again, that's what a bankruptcy receiver is for. But bankruptcy would be challenging for Epik, because it is hard to get a receiver to take over what amounts to a criminal enterprise.
The other issue here is that the deal is already screwed. The proposed deal involved getting ICANN approval for transfer of the registrar accreditation to the new entity.
That's just insane.
Looking at the ICANN Notice of Breach, Royce and crew have known they were delinquent with ICANN fees for quite a while now. It's obvious that Royce's stupidity extends to basic principles of registrar accreditation, because ICANN does not simply rubber stamp deals to move a registrar accreditation from one entity to another without the same sort of disclosure and background information required in the original accreditation process. They CERTAINLY aren't going to approve transfer of a delinquent accreditation that is also designed to screw the registries.
In any event, I am sorry to be traveling later today. Someone might want to contact the judge's clerk's office to get a listen-only line on that Zoom call. US court proceedings are public. But if you do that, please follow the rules and do not make any recordings. Just take some good notes.
