8:15-cv-00317-LES-TDT Doc # 77 Filed: 11/09/15 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 488

To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Objection to Motion to Appoint Receiver
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

jaime penaranda <jaimep2015@yahoo.com>

"strom@ned.uscourts.gov" <strom@ned.uscourts.gov>
11/09/2015 06:28 PM
Objection to Motion to Appoint Receiver

Dear Honorable Judge Strom,

I have not received any formal notification on the pending motion to appoint a receiver. Only TD
Ameritrade shareholders are currently being represented as no other brokers have made an
appearance. For this reason, I am taking this opportunity to explain a few reasons why I object to
the motion to appoint a receiver and bring to light what other shareholders who have not been
made aware would have likely stated. I will also comment on the Supplemental Reply recently
filed by COR.
COR makes an argument that share purchases after the record date are non dividend eligible.
Should the court conclude this to be the case, stock purchases with those dividends should also
be reversed. If the dividends had not been provided to shareholders, in error or not, those
additional stock purchases of Calissio would have never occurred. Shareholders had no way
of knowing about the legality of the dividend and over 2 months have gone by since the funds
were received.
In the Supplemental Reply, COR states that it is .not a guarantor of the member firms
responsibilities to their customers. COR is however responsible for the settlement and delivery
of transactions. COR permitted its customers Beaufort and Nobilis to dilute the outstanding
shares of Calissio more than 400% (COR argues approximately 80% of all Calissio shares
available were issued after the record date), knowing that the marketplace had not been informed
and was under the impression that a share buyback was underway. This creates a problem with
shares purchased immediately prior to the dividend distribution as well. While shareholders
purchased Calissio shares expecting a share increase, in reality shareholders were purchasing
shares being diluted, and many shareholders would not have purchased should this information
had been provided to them. There has to be a higher standard for those involved that had access
to information that could be portrayed as suspect. The dilution of hundreds of millions of shares,
enabled by COR, and their lack of due diligence after observing such a large increase in shares,
must be emphasized. COR has been instrumental to the situation we find ourselves in.
In no scenario are shareholders left with precisely that which they purchased, since dilution at
a minimum reduced each share of Calissio to 1/5 of the value (prior to when these shares were
introduced into the market). Further decline in share price make the losses for shareholders much
greater. CORs states the following example:
if a hypothetical buyer purchased $1,500 worth of stock at a price of $0.0015/share (which is

8:15-cv-00317-LES-TDT Doc # 77 Filed: 11/09/15 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 489

within the real-world share price ranges for Calissio stock during the relevant time period) from
Nobilis or Beaufort, and then (erroneously) received a $0.011/share dividend, that shareholder
would have received a dividend of $11,000 in just a matter of days.
Should the shareholder have reinvested the stock, the shareholder would owe 11,000. With
Calissio shares close to .0001, this is a net loss for the shareholder of 11,000! Shareholders
were not in a position to determine what was happening behind closed doors and should
therefore not ultimately bear the financial burden of this situation.
Finally, COR also states post-payable adjustments are their only recourse. I disagree. Not only
can they sue the DTCC for the transaction but they can also approach their clients, Nobilis and
Beaufort, and find out more about Calissio. Both Nobilis and Beaufort provided funds based on
different due diligence parameters so it is likely that they hold sufficient information about
Calissio to explore other avenues for remedy. No evidence has been presented that COR has
reasonably exhausted all possible legal avenues available to them. In any case, prior to any
receiver being appointed, proper accounting and discovery should be available to interested
parties.
Respectfully,
Jaime Penarana