Basically. To be clear, the judgment against the former sub (the first suit) is enforceable against the sub. TTCM is only liable for the default judgment if the court in the second suit says it is.
I want to clear up this bit about enforcement, too. An enforcement action takes place when someone has judgment and is simply trying to collect on that judgment (whether by seizing assets, garnishment, or whatever). Liability has been determined, and all that remains is trying to force the defendant to pay up. Morgan proceeding against the former sub at this point would be an enforcement action. That is not the case against TTCM. TTCM has not been found liable by a court for the default judgment against the former sub, so the action against TTCM is NOT an enforcement proceeding. To succeed against TTCM, Morgan has the burden of proving that TTCM should be responsible for that debt. TTCM can defend against that action, AND, because TTCM wasn't a party to the original proceeding (against the former sub), most states (I can't speak for AZ) would allow TTCM to raise all the defenses that were available to the former sub in the original proceeding. So, this is a long way from being done, in my opinion.
Why wouldn't someone say all this sooner? I don't know. The concepts can be complicated, and they are exacerbated in this instance by the former sub being called "Tautachrome Inc." at one point. Sometimes the lawyers and accountants are more concerned about regulatory compliance than translating the material into more easily understood material. Also, when a case is before the courts, I think you find a reluctance on the part of everyone to say more than absolutely necessary. That's just a guess.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
