“unclean hands” is a doctrine that prevents one party to a lawsuit from receiving a particular outcome to a case because that party has also engaged in bad behavior."
-
I have felt since the beginning of this case that there is some level of 'blame' to be assigned to multiple parties including those not mentioned (as of yet) as defendants. If Judge Strom concurs with this affirmative defense, what are his options? End the case? Limit the damages? Surely he can't force COR to tack on additional defendants?
And yes, the 3rd affirmative defense is equally compelling in that it would seem to force Judge Strom to make a key decision. Not only does NFS mention DTCC, but all those who put shares into the market after the record date AND all shareholders of CRGP who actually received the improper dividend credit. Did COR anticipate this line of defense - thereby retaining the '50 John Does' as defendants after adding the brokerages last August at the deadline? Obviously to add all shareholders at this point would create a nightmare of epic proportions - but surely Strom has 'seen it all' in the legal arena, at age 92 he retains his vigor, handling a load of 120 cases (as of 2 years ago).
Perhaps within DTCC's sealed highly confidential data is information that would mitigate DTCC's 'participation' in the debacle. Also, there are a number of shareholders who are interested parties in the case who would make the argument that their dividend benefit was cancelled by the U3 halt that eliminated any shareholder value present within the stock price itself. But this circles back to the dirty hands concept, who 'started' this mess and who should bear the brunt of the legal consequences.
And yet despite it all, I still think this goes to trial. We shall see within the next 7 months.
