Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes - here is trademark link http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:724z4g.2.2
You can check the USPTO office for patents as well.
This is very important, I don't recall the website having a press release/news section before? ( I could be wrong), but this points to the company preparing itself for future news releases.
Here is another link over 200,000 followers on facebook https://www.facebook.com/motopeds
Good news to see that MOTOPED facebook page is kept active (posts from late 2020) https://www.facebook.com/Motoped-344486730031
Makes sense. If COR sues shareholders for unjust enrichment that will be a huge mess. The elements to make out a claim for unjust enrichment are different based on the state law. Some states require that the defendant must "directly" receive a benefit, other states just simply require a benefit whether direct or indirect. Shareholder did not "directly" receive a benefit from COR.
DTCC pulled the funds from COR then directly allocated COR's money to the brokers (i.e. book owners) and brokers then distributed the funds to beneficial owners (its clients).
That's only one issue, I could think of many more that could arise if COR were to pursue shareholders for unjust enrichment. Many defenses available to the shareholders here.
It will be interesting to see COR 's next course of action after identifying the dividend recipients. Suing, obtaining judgment, and collecting from thousands of shareholders is not economically feasible. COR's motive in obtaining the list is probably to Identify Adam Carter and his affiliates (they'll look to see who received dividends in hundreds of thousands - million range.
I do not see COR clearing suing individual shareholders in hundreds/thousands of separate suits. If they do they probably won't even recover much even if they obtain judgments. However a more likely course of action is for COR to sue the brokerage firms for negligently allocating the funds to its clients. But the brokers will point the finger at the DTCC and will probably beat COR on any negligence claim.
No, but I will update you once corporate actions updates me.
Yes, at least we know they are actively reviewing the situation instead of ignoring it.
LOL, I know right! Why can't corporate headquarters just send out a mass email to corporate actions before going home tonight, explaining the results... they drive me nuts...
Anytime! Corporate actions told me that the decision is a secret right now and even corporate actions does not know the result of the meeting. They were only told that a resolution has occurred and the results will be released this week, hopefully tomorrow. We shall see what happens....
E-Trade Update:
A meeting was held today and a decision has been made on what is going to happen with the dividend hold... The decision will for sure be released this week.. They are hoping for tomorrow.
Same here and back in September corporate actions told me that E-Trade will not hold past year-end. Hopefully 1/1/16 the hold is automatically released (or better yet sooner).
I love tax law and find it fascinating. It's an interesting issue because under tax law, Income is not taxable until "realized."
Helvering v. Horst tells us that if a taxpayer cannot direct the disposition of his income, then the income is not "realized."The power to dispose of income is the equivalent of ownership of it. The exercise of that power to procure the payment of income to another is the enjoyment **148 and hence the realization of the income by him who exercises it. Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 118 (1940).
C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass Co. tells us that for income to be realized there must be "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion". C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
If you apply both cases to the facts at hand, CRGP dividend recipients with E-Trade accounts have not realized income... BUT E-Trade will probably still report it as income and then their customers will have the burden of fighting the IRS... (assuming the issue is not resolved by tax season).
I think dividend recipients should wait until at least February to bring an arbitration claim, especially with the release date listed in "balances" as 1/1/16. Also, the 1099-Div comes out in February so you don't want to make the pre-mature argument that E-Trade put you in a position where you can't afford your tax liability.
On the balances page it says release date is 1/1/16. E-Trade had always said this was not an official date just an arbitrary one they put in the system. I wonder if their system is setup to automatically release the dividend on 1/1/16 or if someone will have to manually release it.
I agree. E-trade is not trying to steal anyone's money, if that were the case the dividends would not even appear in the account at all. Also, people should take what they hear from customer service reps with a grain of salt... You know more about the story than they do.
I agree.
If the Funds are not released by year-end I am filing an arbitration claim against E-Trade. It's a simple process through FINRA's online arbitration page.
LOL well then they can pay all of our tax bills..
I agree with you the hold should be released immediately, but I wouldn't take "legal" action until after 1/1/16 because you might end up wasting a lot of time and money filing an arbitration complaint only for the hold to be released a few weeks later.
Give it until 1/1/16. If funds are not released by then, file an arbitration claim.
I agree. And I also think its interesting how they are pursuing signature when they emphasized numerous times that appointment of a receiver was the "only available remedy." Kind of hurts their credibility. Strom even pointed to that language in his order, apparently he thought there were other remedies too. If the weaknesses in the DTCC system "caused" the erroneous debit, then DTCC should have been named as a defendant. COR will have a huge evidentiary and causation issue by pursuing Signature.
It's a very difficult case to win and Signature is probably in the process of hiding its cash in the event of an unfavorable judgment which may not even occur for over a year. COR is hoping they will find evidence during discovery. I think in a few weeks you'll see new attorneys appearing on behalf of signature.
It'll be very difficult for COR to win on fraud. COR may have to amend its complaint to include a negligence theory. We probably won't even know the outcome of the motion to dismiss for 6+ months and I think DTCC has ran out of "advice" to give COR.
New dockets.. COR is pursuing litigation with Signature..Brief filed in opposition to motion to dismiss.
The margin call for those who didn't have funds in their accounts to cover the amount of the dividend has been in place since September. The margin team has been instructed not to act on the call.
Yeah, I took it to mean that they are consulting with their legal department and risk advisors to determine if it is appropriate to release the hold.
E-Trade Corporate Actions Update:
They are aware of the updates with the Federal Court Case. They are reviewing it on their end and should make a decision shortly.
While E-Trade account holders's funds are on "hold," is E-Trade placing these funds in a trust or is E-Trade using the funds?
LOL DTCC went through the rigorous process of changing it from 180 days, to 120 days, to now 90 days... You honestly think DTCC will change its policy and throw away its efforts for COR Clearing's benefit? Second, they are not working with COR clearing... IF they were they would have reversed this a long time ago without making COR go through the court process.
I think she just got confused. Someone relayed information to her about pending litigation and she thought that litigation and lawsuits are two different things... I don't trust anything customer service says.. still waiting on corporate actions to get back with me. E-Trade has put in writing that the reason for the hold is the pending litigation.... So any other statements by them relating to the reason for the hold can be rebutted.
A customer service rep at E-Trade told me the Nebraska lawsuit is not the reason for the dividend hold.. She said "the hold is a result of 'litigation' the lawsuit you are talking about is a 'lawsuit' its not litigation. Anyone can bring a lawsuit, for example the Facebook IPO caused lawsuits.. but this is litigation its different"LMFAO WTFFF
Back in September they said the hold was in place due to FINRA investigating. Then the story changed to "the hold is a result of a lawsuit alleging the dividend was paid to defraud the marketplace." I have a feeling now E-Trade will either go back to its FINRA story or will release the hold.
The wouldn't hear anything from the Court.. They are monitoring the docket just as we all were these past few months. I emailed corporate actions the court order and they said they will have a response in 1-2 days..
Correct.. Also, I thought about COR filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition to "avoid the transfer" but there are many reasons why this would not work.. 1) the avoidance powers are only effective if used against transfers made within 90 days of the filing of the petition, and 2) CRGP can't be served.
E-Trade will most likely release the hold soon.
In COR's brief to appoint a receiver, it included a footnote stating that some of the DTCC member firms are holding the funds "pending the outcome of this motion." This language tells me that E-Trade probably knew that the motion to appoint a receiver would be filed and that the reason they imposed a hold was a precautionary measure in the event the motion would be granted.
Since the order denied the motion to appoint a receiver, E-Trade should release the hold..
I don't foresee any other possible legal remedy that would unwind the dividend from the pockets of brokers/shareholders. Further COR stated several times to the Court that the limited purpose receiver is the "ONLY" way that COR would be made whole... However, I think COR knew that there are other legal remedies available... this was just the most convenient remedy for them. It will be very difficult for COR to WIN on fraud against Signature. The level of proof necessary to prove fraud is clear and convincing evidence.. Tough burden.... At best, COR may have a shot at winning a negligence suit but again... discovery will be very expensive and may not even be worth it if the chances of winning are low... I think COR is in the process of weighing its options.
If COR proceeds to sue Signature Stock or if it even adds DTCC to the complaint, then the defendants could use COR's assertions as a defense.. COR stated many times that appointment of a receiver is the only adequate remedy...This statement is HUGE and is now part of the Court's record/order.... The statement suggests that nobody is at "fault" from a legal standpoint except for CRGP.
Sig stock or DTCC could argue "you stated on the record to the Court that the only adequate remedy was appointment of a receiver to fix CRGP's (issuer's error) , why are you now seeking a remedy from us if relief in the form of a limited purpose receiver was your only adequate remedy? This argument would diminish the credibility of the plaintiff.
There will not be any more litigation against CRGP... the focus will turn to Signature and or DTCC - The registered agent for CRGP has resigned, and CRGP cannot be served with any legal papers.
Agreed... There will not be a receiver.. not even down the road.. If the order to appoint receiver is denied now, it will be not motioned for again. As I said from day 1, the corporate veil of a publicly traded corporation will not be pierced. Suit against signature will continue.... E-Trade should release funds soon since there is no imminent danger of those funds being reversed. Suit against signature stock will not be based on the issue of whether or not the dividend was legal... it will focus on fraud and or negligence and there would not be standing to collect from shareholders....
Probably not.. the higher court will look to see if the lower court "abused its discretion." In receivership cases, the lower court decision almost always stands..