Is there any reason Calasse’s lawyer wouldn’t bring this up in the first two court cases? I watched both, and this is the first I’m hearing any actual proof. Calasse’s lawyer spoke for a few minutes and his argument seemed to basically be “Calasse owns shares because he told us he owns shares.” Why would this be left out? Calasse had months to show these certificates to his lawyers and present them as proof.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
