NaturalShrimp Inc (SHMP)

[MFranny]

First, a recitation of the pleadings is not legal advice.

Second, stating that res judicata only applies to the parties IS incorrect legal advice. Res judicata applies to the claim. Shover's complaint pleads that he is similarly situated to ALL NSH shareholders. Therefore, Shover alleged that his claim was the same for all NSH Shareholders. Logically, the Order applies to ALL NSH shareholders and not just Shover.

Third, your claim that collateral estoppel will also not apply is also incorrect legal advice. Collateral estoppel = issue preclusion. In Shover's suit, the issue and claim were one and the same. Logically, the Order is then also a final adjudication of the issue.

Lastly, "anyone can collaterally attack" is further incorrect legal advice. Since the Shover suit only applied to NSH shareholders, who would have standing to relitigate the claim and issue? On what basis would anyone other than a NSH shareholder be able to address the NSH Shares issue / claim?