You can research it all you want but this case will be decided by the court based on the evidence presented in this case. And it doesn't matter if you restrict your research to all loans or just convertible notes you will find the courts have varied widely in the decisions. For myself although I have also looked at some of the cases. I follow what the company is doing since no matter how the courts decide this case HJOE continues to move forward.

"Defendant's contention that this court must declare the loan void as a matter of law is without merit. There is no specific statutory authority for voiding a loan that violates the criminal usury statute"


"While the provisions of the Penal Law may apply, the Court finds that the General Obligations Law is equally controlling with respect to remediation. Section 5-511(1) of the General Obligations Law decrees that a contract that is found to be usurious is void ab initio and so continues in perpetuity, Wilkie v. Roosevelt 3 Johns. Cas. 206 (Supreme Court of Judicature, 1802), Sabine v. Paine 223 NY 401 (1918). The provisions of General Obligations Law Section 5-511(2) mandate that "...the court shall declare the same to be void, enjoin any prosecution thereon, and order the same to be surrendered and cancelled." G.O.L. § 5-511(2). The language of the statute is mandatory, leaves no room for judicial discretion and therefore requires a declaration by this Court that the entire obligation sought to be enforced by Plaintiff is null and void, from its very inception, Szerdahelyi v. Harris 67 NY2d 42 (1986)."




http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-co...141-u.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellat...01372.html