Posted On: 11/04/2015 7:45:42 PM
Post# of 11039
I actually like 1manband's argument. Essentially, he's arguing that CRGP's ability to pay the dividend was so fraudulent, that those parties involved should have seen it immediately and not allowed the dividend to occur.
He argues very well that COR, among others, are directly responsible for a fraudulent dividend to be paid out. What's COR's claim to restitution above shareholders if they are partially responsible for the dividend?
He argues very well that COR, among others, are directly responsible for a fraudulent dividend to be paid out. What's COR's claim to restitution above shareholders if they are partially responsible for the dividend?
(0)
(0)
