Replies to post #96456 on DD Support Board and Research Team

[janice shell]

That will be interesting indeed. Though in the meanwhile, the conversation on the CRGP board tonight has had its moments.

[DragonBear]

I believe this will have to await Signature Stock Transfer's Answer

What is the liability of a TA in this mess? Does COR have to prove Signature knew the mechanics of the divy scam for there to be liability? As opposed to Signature just being sloppy. After all as I understand it, FINRA did approve the corporate action request for the divy. Signature serving the role of the TA as being the in the middle paper transfer agent. What is your take on how Signature liability would be proven by COR?

Another question is: Doesn't COR have to make a motion soon for the court to rule on the validity of the divy per State law? Once the divy is ruled illegal, then they have an open field to claw back funds, wherever they can find them - right?

Just to add more goo, what happens if COR successfully hits an affiliate for say $1M, and the affiliate doesn't have the funds? Could an affiliate claim it had been scammed by CRGP without knowing it. And then proceed to file a lawsuit against GRCP, get a default judgement, and then start a claw back of its own? Where the only target funds is the retail SH divy. Again, it would seem the divy would already have to be declared illegal by the court. Your thoughts?