InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 20
Posts 2327
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 04/20/2009

Re: op9171787 post# 158184

Sunday, 05/13/2018 10:27:25 AM

Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:27:25 AM

Post# of 159752

about the contractual obligations concerning financial instruments, the uniform commercial code, etc?



Not quite. The DTCC made an error in approving counterfeit shares...and whatever excuse they have for the additional 84 Million they allowed into the market. Accident, intentional, whatever. Probably a combination of third party fraud and DTC fraud.

They do not have to legally deliver you anything. They do have to legally compensate you. The problem is, usually it's the company who was defrauded and shareholders get the middle finger unless the company wants to share.

In this case, there was no company. It was a sham involved in a scam, who later fleeced their shareholders again.

If a court in Tennessee saw it that way


A court didn't, a small claims judge just issued an award and the award was tossed because securities are not covered in small claims. Not even really sure why the Judge did not understand that.

I think the average jury would be thoroughly righteously fuming at what these brokers have done



True, and if you could ever get such a case to a jury, that's where you could have made huge bucks...if there was a legit company with legit revenues that was screwed. When you access what "damages" occurred, you have an empty shell with no operations and two guys who lied thru their teeth repeatedly to the shareholders...while stealing funds wired to an account in Australia for themselves.





Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.