Replies to post #41834 on Calissio Resources Group Inc (CRGP)

[janice shell]

In addition:

As an initial matter, the Complaint alleges that Signature and the other Defendants conspired to carry out the fraudulent dividend distribution scheme, and thus many of the allegations in the Complaint apply to all three Defendants…

I just don't buy it. What monetary interest would Signature have in participating in such a conspiracy? None that I can see, unless COR is prepared to go further, and allege that money changed hands under the table.

I believe Signature was negligent. It should have made an effort to find out more about its client, "Adam Carter". It should have investigated the background of the GIM note. It should perhaps have notified FINRA or the SEC of those very large issuances during the interim period. But I don't think COR will ever succeed in proving that Bogutski plotted to defraud COR. The burden of proof for that allegation is on COR, and I don't begin to see how COR can come up with anything convincing.

[DiscoveryStock]

Still don't see any illegal dividend. Maybe an unexpected amount resulting from the conversions, but not illegal.

DTCC told COR they were going to charge them the difference. COR complained and menaced DTCC. DTCC proceeded anyway and drafted the amount from COR's accounts. If there was something illegal, why didn't DTCC stop the distribution? More than that, if there was some mistake, why didn't DTCC stop the distribution?

DTCC was warned and still they didn't see any fraud or any mistake. The extra (not erroneous) debit was caused by COR itself.

Who has to pay that extra divi? It depends on the note. If the note established that CRGP had to come up with any extra amount, then CRGP is responsible. But the note didn't have any legend (think that's the name they use) about this. So, the responsibility goes to the guys who converted and dumped (Nobilis, Beaufort). Still don't know why COR hasn't proceeded against them. Maybe their contract established COR service included all fees and any extraordinary expenses.

Another thing: "DTCC advising COR to appoint a receiver". I haven't seen that in any document from DTCC. I think that's just another one of COR's lies.