But I believe both CRGP and the people selling them, existent or non existent shares overlooked the 25% rule about the dividend which is stated very clearly on many websites. And someone ended up with the dividend, and someone ended up having to pay because of the rule, which is very clear even wit the exdiv date, and all.
That seems to be part of the problem. But… When the company declared the dividend, it called it a quarterly--or regular--dividend. It was only when FINRA put its notice on the Daily List just before the pay date that it was called a special dividend. COR had been clearing the Nobilis sales since 29 July, evidently without realizing a special divvy was being paid, and that the buyers of the Nobilis stock would be entitled to it.
COR's complaint against CRGP and Signature was hastily written, and isn't--at least to me--entirely clear on some points. But it seems their contention is that the company and the TA had an obligation to inform the public--including them--that the dividend was a special dividend, and that it had been issuing new stock between the record date and the ex date. It further alludes to an "understanding" that the stock sold by Nobilis would not be eligible for the divvy. It doesn't explain the basis for that understanding, but Adam Carter's remarks in his emails to COR suggest that he also believed the stock should not have received the dividend. But it did, and he didn't return the money to COR.
That's what's at the heart of the lawsuit. But we still don't know why Carter was unable (or unwilling) to settle things quickly with COR. Nor do we know how much stock was issued between the record date and the ex date, as we still don't have an official number for the shares outstanding.
