Calissio Resources Group Inc (CRGP)

[janice shell]

COR Clearing substantially narrowed its requests by identifying a discrete list of posters, each of whom were identified because each had posted one or more messages that evidenced they were unjustly enriched by Calissio’s fraudulent scheme…

And that list includes a poster who joked that he planned to buy Uzbekistan with his winnings. Sheesh.

Inexplicably, the list omits three aliases--no doubt a single person--who clearly had ties to the company, or to people very close to the company.

Even if IHub is forced to turn over the information requested, what then? Were the people who received large dividend payments to which they weren't entitled "unjustly enriched" in the legal sense of the term? We've all heard of cases involving people who had wads of cash erroneously deposited in their bank accounts, but those people did have an obligation to give the money back, because they weren't expecting it and knew it wasn't meant for them.

This is different. The company declared a dividend, and DTCC paid it. Yes, they both screwed up, but that wasn't the fault of the people who received it. Here's a legal definition of "unjust enrichment". If some kind of contractual relationship is a necessary factor, I just don't see it in this case. The shareholder-recipients did and do have a contractual relationship with their brokers, but not with COR.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unjust+enrichment