Usually, and I qualify that because of regulatory irregularities particluarly with gvrp/mamg, it's actually the ex-date that governs who gets the shares with "due bills" attached for dividend shares.
It's common for companies (and traders) to get confused and count the record date as the last day to buy for divvies. However, the ex-date is what actually obtains: if you sell before the ex-date, your shares leave your account with "due bills attached." A recent example of confusion is FCDH...there are threads here on-board.
A caveat: the reg agencies with, for example, BCIT and GVRP, have shown that they can "suspend" the rules when any problem gets too big or too complicated. My *opinion* is that in this case, they would set the ex-date at some point in the future. It's only logical, and usually the NASD doesn't care if a company screws it up...
However, again using gvrp/mamg as example, the reg agencies seem to be letting stand an illegal reverse split that was accomplished with neither (a) NASD publication (which is required by SEC) and (b) without an ex-date.
Alternatively, the company might be told they will get an ex-date at some point in the future, at which time the company can say, "well, then--forget it: no divvies."
And of course all of this moot for anyone playing merely because they like the stock. It's just another angle...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
