NaturalShrimp Inc (SHMP)

[MFranny]

FYI, they are of the same subset of litigation preclusion doctrines. One precludes subsequent litigation of the same claim, while the other the same issue. Here, the claim and issue are one in the same. Therefore, it's res judicata since the CLAIM (share conversion - of which the SERIES A, as a matter of law, are fully constituent) was substantively decided. I.e. good luck filing a suit to adjudicate anything with the Series A (other than when they became/become legally ineffective) and not have some reference be made to the Shover Texas litigation.

Also, whether you had notice and an obligation to defend yourself is a fact issue. I wouldn't want to be you, in front of a judge, saying: "oh yea, I knew about that case, but I made a mistake of law and didn't think it would effect MY ownership interest in NSI." Opposing counsel will make a judge tell you to go pound sand.

Every shareholder had notice (by way of SEC filings) of the pendency of the Shover case. Caveat emptor. ;)