I agree. And I also think its interesting how they are pursuing signature when they emphasized numerous times that appointment of a receiver was the "only available remedy." Kind of hurts their credibility. Strom even pointed to that language in his order, apparently he thought there were other remedies too. If the weaknesses in the DTCC system "caused" the erroneous debit, then DTCC should have been named as a defendant. COR will have a huge evidentiary and causation issue by pursuing Signature.
If true, this simple statement invalidates the complete lawsuit. It is equivalent to: "DTCC caused all this mess but COR is afraid of DTCC. Because of that, COR goes against innocent parties".
Market Data 
Markets 
