Not Clear Why Rule 60b is not applicable. Agent arranged a merger, and then new company name(s) appeared. Not so much does an address change seem to matter. The different rules of organization are possibly what really matters. There are different company names all over, but apparently also different, and established, rules of organization, involving states. Not too much to hide, there. Agent followed up on the first set of rules of company organization, it could be said, but not the second set of rules of company organization: Until years later. Arizona could even say easily: That everything that happened was open, public, and transparent.
Number (6) below looks entirely way too relevant, for example(?)?
Maybe a Jenner Woman rule kind reasoning applies: "I'm really not that kind of guy, any more(?)!" "It clearly has been me, however, all along(?)!" The Agent could maybe even start. . .maybe not from scratch, but at least all over. TTCM could even offer a settlement basis--needing discovery or not(?).
Agent had been an agent, apparently--and claims that something is due for services rendered, maybe punto.
___________________________________________
Arizona 60
b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)(1);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason justifying relief.___________________________
