Following my previous post I can see why some may not have understood entirely where I was getting at. I was going to send this as a response to Meiko but decided to post publicly in case anyone is interested.
Please see these are quotes from various of the filings:
1) "Because Nobilis determined that no dividend rights attached to its shares, Nobilis sold its shares to the open market and therefore in large part back to Calissio for only $700,000."
2) “DTCC debited COR Clearing … another $690,000 for erroneous due bills assessed on Beaufort’s shares—significantly more than the amount Nobilis or Beaufort received for their shares.”
Lets look at what the Beaufort account is composed of: 1) 60m shares*.011= $660,000 dividend. 2) 90m shares sold*.011 = -$990,000 dividend 3) Sale price of 90m shares plus share price of 60m shares it did not sell. Therefore, prior to sale of shares Beaufort had a MAXIMUM loss of -$330,000. Nobilis converted at an average price of .002 so supposing this was the case with Beaufort (could be higher), that would equal 175k. Bottom line is that Beaufort has a MUCH lower claim, if any, than is being sued for.
Now here are more excerpts:
1) "On information and belief, Defendants perpetrated this scheme against Beaufort Capital Partners (“Beaufort”), another customer of a COR Clearing client broker, in that instance improperly retaining as much as $700,000 in dividends."
2) Concerning Beaufort, "Relative to this customer, Defendants received the proceeds from the DTCC charge to COR Clearing in the amount of nearly $700,000."
3)The same fraud was perpetrated against Beaufort, resulting in wrongful retention of dividends in the amount of nearly $700,000.
So why was Beaufort charged 690k by DTCC then? It is INCORRECT to do 60m shares*.011 =660k because the 60m shares are the shares that Beaufort KEPT. A dividend would be due to them on this amount and would not have been debited from their account. DTCC would have debited from Beaufort either 990k for 90m shares sold or 330k net on 90m shares sold while retaining 60m shares.
Long story short, Beaufort basically has little to no claim in the lawsuit and CORs amount on Nobilis is therefore also questionable. As the excerpts read, $700k (actually 690k) was retained in dividends by the DTCC but it’s the reason why that matters. This is the most important question. I think I know the answer but fraudhub will continue to ignore it.
ALL IMHO
Please see these are quotes from various of the filings:
1) "Because Nobilis determined that no dividend rights attached to its shares, Nobilis sold its shares to the open market and therefore in large part back to Calissio for only $700,000."
2) “DTCC debited COR Clearing … another $690,000 for erroneous due bills assessed on Beaufort’s shares—significantly more than the amount Nobilis or Beaufort received for their shares.”
Lets look at what the Beaufort account is composed of: 1) 60m shares*.011= $660,000 dividend. 2) 90m shares sold*.011 = -$990,000 dividend 3) Sale price of 90m shares plus share price of 60m shares it did not sell. Therefore, prior to sale of shares Beaufort had a MAXIMUM loss of -$330,000. Nobilis converted at an average price of .002 so supposing this was the case with Beaufort (could be higher), that would equal 175k. Bottom line is that Beaufort has a MUCH lower claim, if any, than is being sued for.
Now here are more excerpts:
1) "On information and belief, Defendants perpetrated this scheme against Beaufort Capital Partners (“Beaufort”), another customer of a COR Clearing client broker, in that instance improperly retaining as much as $700,000 in dividends."
2) Concerning Beaufort, "Relative to this customer, Defendants received the proceeds from the DTCC charge to COR Clearing in the amount of nearly $700,000."
3)The same fraud was perpetrated against Beaufort, resulting in wrongful retention of dividends in the amount of nearly $700,000.
So why was Beaufort charged 690k by DTCC then? It is INCORRECT to do 60m shares*.011 =660k because the 60m shares are the shares that Beaufort KEPT. A dividend would be due to them on this amount and would not have been debited from their account. DTCC would have debited from Beaufort either 990k for 90m shares sold or 330k net on 90m shares sold while retaining 60m shares.
Long story short, Beaufort basically has little to no claim in the lawsuit and CORs amount on Nobilis is therefore also questionable. As the excerpts read, $700k (actually 690k) was retained in dividends by the DTCC but it’s the reason why that matters. This is the most important question. I think I know the answer but fraudhub will continue to ignore it.
ALL IMHO
1
Calissio Resources Group, Inc. (CRGP) Stock Research Links
PLEASE READ IF YOU READ MY POSTS
I invested in Calissio Resources Group because I considered the financial statements warranted an investment. For every reader here that has been paying attention to my posts, please note the following:
1) I am not licensed to give investment advice. Everything expressed here is an opinion of my own for discussion purposes.
2) The only thing I know about the upcoming merger is that typically they are good for investors. A premium is typically offered when companies go private from what I understand. I certainly was and still am an investor before this announcement was made.
3) Finally, regarding the current OS, while there is lots of conjecture, I must rely on the only available information out there which has been presented in PRs. Therefore, OS as of the last PR was 242m. Consequently, I don't believe there is reason to believe I am a majority holder, despite recent purchases, without making a large degree of assumptions.
If anyone is wondering why I am posting this, it is because I want to make sure no one misinterprets my posts or considers I have any intent on the board other than to share potential ideas/speculate on possibilities.
I invested in Calissio Resources Group because I considered the financial statements warranted an investment. For every reader here that has been paying attention to my posts, please note the following:
1) I am not licensed to give investment advice. Everything expressed here is an opinion of my own for discussion purposes.
2) The only thing I know about the upcoming merger is that typically they are good for investors. A premium is typically offered when companies go private from what I understand. I certainly was and still am an investor before this announcement was made.
3) Finally, regarding the current OS, while there is lots of conjecture, I must rely on the only available information out there which has been presented in PRs. Therefore, OS as of the last PR was 242m. Consequently, I don't believe there is reason to believe I am a majority holder, despite recent purchases, without making a large degree of assumptions.
If anyone is wondering why I am posting this, it is because I want to make sure no one misinterprets my posts or considers I have any intent on the board other than to share potential ideas/speculate on possibilities.
