“He/she would have you believe that if you bought a home with a vagrant living in it; that you couldn't later force the vagrant to leave because they occupied it at the time you bought it.”
I don’t know why you feel the need to try to compare a shareholder-based situation to a non-shareholder based situation, but your above example is housed in real estate law, not corporate law.
For the record, if you bought a house with a vagrant living in it, 2 things could happen depending on how long the vagrant has been there. If the vagrant has been there a short time, they would likely be deemed a holdover tenant and you’d have to evict them the way you would any tenant. If the vagrant has been there long enough, they could try to claim adverse possession, which if successful, would cause the courts to sign over ownership of the property to the vagrant, and possibly undoing your purchase if its found the previous owner knew of the dirty title.
Either way, not comparable to the situation at hand.
“The argument holds no water. “
Your argument, true. My statement wasn’t an argument...its just how it works.
“Right to sue (standing) is one thing.”
One thing that people who bought after the NWS would never have.
“The ability to win is another. In the above question, the vagrant could be held liable for the first owners losses upon sale, but not owing to the second, except when he is forced to leave the property would become more valuable. But, it doesn't change the situation.”
What the heck are you making up now? There’s no situation where a vagrant would be held liable to the seller of a property for damages after the sale has gone thru. Under the law, the moment the sale is complete, all profits and losses transfer with the sale to the new owner. Its possible the vagrant would be liable to the NEW owner, but not the old one. Its also possible that if adverse possession takes place and the property is signed over to the vagrant, the old owner could be liable to the new owner.
Again, not comparable to our situation.
“While sure, the injuries occurred to the parties holding at the time of the conservatorship (confiscation), and the NWS, but everyday standing enures to the owners of the stock that are in permanent "time-out". So, while injuries would be due those at the time who owned it; doesn't change that today in confiscation damages didn't occur.”
Incorrect legal terminology aside, this isn’t how it works. Standing requires you to be an owner at the time of the INITIAL damage. Buying 3 years after the damages started and then claiming you are being continually damaged won’t hold water in court. In a way thats like the legal defense “Coming to the Nuisance” (if this were a tort case).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
