i think the fact that the judge is getting inundated now with shareholder objections to a receiver, the judge will see that COR has oversimplified the facts of this case surrounding their request for receivership to claw back divvy.
I'm sure the judge was aware before the recent 15 or so letters were sent that reversing the dividend wouldn't make shareholders happy. His task all along has been to weigh that obvious fact against the serious harm done to COR.
i think the judge will tell them to sort it out directly with the dtcc or in federal court against the dtcc, where all interested and affected parties would get the chance to be heard.
Judges don't tell people who to sue. And in no forum will all "interested parties" get to have their say. Obviously some--most of the clearing firms--don't care one way or the other about the appointment of a receiver; if they did, they'd have registered their objections. And there are too many shareholders for it to be practical to take testimony from every one of them.
Probably there are some shareholders who don't care one way or the other, either. No doubt a great many had small positions in CRGP. They may not have spent the money, or they may have much more than enough in their accounts to cover a margin call. It's even possible that some used the cash to make PROFITABLE investments elsewhere, and so would end up on top in any case.
And that's the difficulty. A reversal wouldn't affect all shareholders equally. The way in which they were affected depends on what actions they took. How will the judge deal with that?
..but nobody wants to hold COR accountable for clearing stock that wasn't supposed to receive a divvy.
And why should they be "held responsible" for that? There's nothing wrong with doing it. The problem here arose because due bill were evidently attached to that stock when they should not have been. The question of whether the stock should have been issued in the first place is another matter, and is not part of this case.
AI
