scarednomore, it has been said before that the Judge did not do his "homework". The Settlement was a conclusion of the DA and the CA which were both based on provisions made in the APA. It has also been said, even by both plaintiffs counsel, that the APA was an illegal transaction, yet, none of them presented it to the Judge as such.
The fact that the case was taken away from a seasoned Judge (Suzanne Covington) and handed over to a relatively new comer with no explanation and/or opposition by the counsel of either party is suspicious.
The fact that only 10 days after taking over the case, the Judge gave his preliminary approval to the settlement, is suspicious, not to mention the fact that the public hearing for it was NOT posted in the court calendar.
The fact that the Judge refused to address any of the irregularities presented to him, and previously, to Judge Covington, is suspicious.
The fact that the Judge limited himself to sign a Final Judgment served on a plater by the attorneys, is suspicious.
The fact that the Judge neglected to enforce his own rulings regarding the monthly follow up reports of the execution of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Judgment is suspicious.
The fact that the Judge failed to enforce his own ruling in which he was expected to approve or reject Loch Harris request for dissolution (which, by the way, it was never submitted to the Court) is suspicious.
The fact that the Judge rejected an opt out request by a shareholder who presented her Loch Stock certificate within the time established by the court, is suspicious.
The fact that the Judge refused to enforce his ruling by allowing CDEX shares to be distributed to at least one person who opted out, is suspicious.
Should I go on?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
