Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3


Doc # 48

Filed: 11/02/15

Page 1 of 3 - Page ID # 410









Elias <eliasrv01@hotmail.com>


"strom@ned.uscourts.gov" <strom@ned.uscourts.gov>


11/02/2015 06:18 AM



Judge Lyle E. Strom United States District Court District of Nebraska


111 South 18 Plaza, Suite 1152 Omaha, NE 68102 Case 15317 COR Clearing v. Calissio Resources

Honorable Judge Lyle E. Strom

  • I write directly to you to inform that, as an investor of CRGP and affected party in the appointment of a receiver, I haven’t received any notification form COR or from my broker and

haven’t been given a chance to be heard by the court.

  • I don’t know if the absence of the intended notification was a faulty process or was done

intentionally by some of the parties to prevent a response. The lack of responses is not because

of the lack of opposition in the appointment of a receiver, it’s because of the lack of notifications to investors and the absence of appropriate channels to respond.

  • I know of several other CRGP investors with accounts in different brokerages and none of them has received any communication. All we know about the case is because we’re tracking the

court documents posted in the Internet. Most investors are completely unaware of the current situation.

Being blocked to give our opinion, with intention or by error, is a very unfair situation to us, the small investors. Dividends and investment amounts may be small compared to what big companies work with, but are significant amounts in our families’ finances.

  • I request the court to instruct COR and brokers to send notifications and present proof of

deliveryto each and all CRGP investors so they can get the chance to give an opinion regarding

the appointment of a receiver. A count of investors per broker should also be requested to validate the amount of notifications sent is correct.

Next is my position regarding the appointment of a limited purpose receiver:

  • I oppose the motion to appoint a limited purpose receiver.

Reasons for the opposition:

1 – The intent of the lawsuit was changed. COR’s initial claims are against Calissio and its affiliates, now they seek relief from innocent


Doc # 48

Filed: 11/02/15

Page 2 of 3 - Page ID # 411


  • 2 – It was a Special Dividend.

COR keeps repeating to the court the mechanics of how the standard dividends work. Calissio’s cash dividend was a special dividend, not standard. When the dividend is 25% or higher of the share price, it qualifies as a special dividend. According to this (SEC rule 11140b2), FINRA declared the dividend to be a special dividend and it was paid by DTCC accordingly. The main difference between standard and special dividends is that the ex date is changed. When companies declare a dividend, they define a record date and two business days before that is the exdate. That’s the standard dividend. If special, the exdate is changed to one day after payment. In this case, FINRA declared the effective ex date to be August 19, 2015. All investors who had shares on August 18, 2015 were entitled to the dividend and were paid by DTCC.

  • 3 – I don’t see a fraudulent intent.

COR keeps repeating the dividend was fraudulent and performed by Callissio with the intention to get an illicit gain.

After 75 days from the dividend, I still see no intention to defraud. I see that Calissio, as well as COR, were expecting this dividend to be handled as a standard dividend. According to market rules, it was declared a special dividend. Add to this that COR, Nobilis, and Beaufort were converting and dumping shares into the market. Those new shares were entitled to the dividend because of the adjusted exdate and the difference (4 million dollars) is the amount COR was charged by DTCC.

Also, I don’t see that the amount of the dividend is exaggerated. The dividend was 550% of the share price at the moment of the payment. But it was 30% of the share price at the moment of


the declaration of the dividend (June 15 , 2015). It was 2% of the share price at the beginning of the year. Making reference to a percentage is relative. $0.011 per share, the amount of the dividend, sounds in line with the stated company’s quarterly reports.

Calissio expected to pay less than one million dollars for the dividend. Then COR shows up and says that Callissio owes them the extra 4 million dollars charged to them by DTCC. No wonder why there was a conflict in here.

  • 4 – I don’t see a glitch in the system.

COR keeps mentioning a glitch in the payment system made Calissio get unjustified gains. SEC rule defines the conditions of a special dividend, FINRA declared the special dividend according to the rule, DTCC cleared and distributed the funds to brokers, brokers distributed to shareholders. And that’s it.

Why DTCC did charge COR and not CRGP for the extra funds? The mechanics is explained in TDA’s opposition in the second scenario.

DTCC is mentioned frequently and in all documentation of this case. They’re a main actor in this situation. I recommend the court to ask DTCC directly for their actions and their position in all this.


Doc # 48

Filed: 11/02/15

Page 3 of 3 - Page ID # 412

5 – Is Calissio a shadow company?

COR keeps repeating Calissio is a shadow company and a ghost corporation, that directives are nowhere to be found.

How convenient. Now that the extra dividend is being charged to them, they have a problem. They had no problem when converting and selling hundreds of millions of shares from the company to unsuspecting investors. Market regulations require clearing companies to have the safeguards and controls to prevent these kinds of situations from happening. Fines are issued if they don’t comply. Note that COR Clearing was fined one million dollars in December 2013 for “Extensive Regulatory Failures”.

COR’s faulty operation and handling of the lawsuit has already resulted in severe loses to investors. Price per share is currently $0.0001. It was $0.0020 the day of the dividend. It was $0.0060 a couple days later with an intraday high of $0.0118.

6 – It is more harm than good to appoint a receiver.

The amount of shareholders affected if a receiver is appointed ranges in the thousands. TDA reported 764 investors. Scottrade and Fidelity may have similar numbers. E*Trade most probably has more. Add dozens of smaller brokers. The number of investors could easily reach three thousand.

Collection costs will be above the amount of the distributed dividend. After two months and a half from the distribution of the dividend, the money is just not there anymore. It was either spent or reinvested in the company. No money will be recovered and the credit history of thousands of investors will be destroyed, not to mention that the dividend followed all rules and was received in good faith.

For those reasons, I oppose the appointment of a receiver.

Thank you for your attention to this letter. Regards, Elias Rodriguez