show_temp.pdf

7/24/2019 show_temp.pdf

1/11

Page 1of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

COR CLEARING, LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALISSIO RESOURCES GROUP, INC., aNevada corporation; ADAM CARTER, anindividual; SIGNATURE STOCK TRANSFER,INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1-50.

Defendants.

)

)))))))))))

))

Case No. 8:15-cv-00317-LES-FG3

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT

SIGNATURE STOCK TRANSFER, INC.S

MOTION TO DISMISS

In its comprehensive, 75-paragraph Complaint, Plaintiff COR Clearing, LLC (COR

Clearing)details the fraudulent dividend distribution scheme perpetrated by all three

Defendants in this action: Calissio Resources Group, Inc. (Calissio), Calissiospresident,

Adam Carter (Carter), and Calissiostransfer agent, Signature Stock Transfer, Inc.

(Signature). The Complaint sets forth the precise nature of this fraud and each partys role in

it, as well as the way in which each Defendant, including Signature, purposefully availed itself of

this forum. Accordingly, the Court should deny Signaturesmotion to dismiss in its entirety

because COR Clearing has (1) alleged plausible and legally cognizable claims for declaratory

judgment, unjust enrichment, and fraud against Signature, and (2) demonstrated that Signature is

subject to personal jurisdiction in Nebraska.

Moreover, Signatures half-baked motion provides no basis for this Court to dismiss the

Complaint. Indeed, Signature focuses on onlyfiveof the 75 paragraphs in the Complaint to

support its baseless assertions that COR Clearing has failed to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(6)

8:15-cv-00317-LES-TDT Doc # 81 Filed: 11/13/15 Page 1 of 11 - Page ID # 497


2/11

Page 2of 11

and 9(b), and has failed to sufficiently allege personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). See Mot.

at 4. What is more, Signatures motion is completely devoid of any factual or legal support. See

id.at 4-5. Thus, Signature has fallen far short of meeting its burden at the motion to dismiss

stage, and the motion to dismiss should be denied in its entirety.

I. THE COMPLAINT STATES CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND

UNJUST ENRICHMENT UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

Signature argues that COR Clearings First and Second Claims for Relief (declaratory

judgment and unjust enrichment, respectively) should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

See Mot. at 5. As discussed below, however, the Complaint more than adequately alleges these

claims against Signature under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which even

Signature admits is a generous pleading standard. SeeMot. at 2.

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff merely needs to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Northstar Indus., Inc. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 576

F.3d 827, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotingBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

It is axiomatic that in evaluating a motion to dismiss, [t]he complaint is construed most

favorably to the nonmoving party. Id.at 832 (citing Casino Res. Corp. v. Harrahs Entmt,

Inc., 243 F.3d 435, 437 (8th Cir. 2001)). Here, when construed in the light most favorable to

COR Clearing, the Complaint undoubtedly meets Rule 8s generouspleading standard.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Signature and the other Defendants engaged in a

calculated scheme to defraud the marketplace and the clearing system in order to obtain

millions of dollars from unsuspecting market participants by exploiting a weakness in the

dividend payment system of the third-party Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (DTCC).

Compl. 1. The Complaint further alleges that Defendants have defrauded COR Clearing and

its customers by surreptitiously issuing hundreds of millions of shares of Calissio stock after



3/11

Page 3of 11

declaring a dividend on all common shares outstanding prior to the issuance, then repurchasing

hundreds of millions of these new shares . . . and relying on DTCCs dividend payment system to

fail to distinguish between shares entitled to dividends and those not so entitled. Id.

Defendants then capitalized on this circumstance when DTCC thereby paid to Calissio and

purchasing shareholders dividends with proceedstaken fromthe accounts of COR Clearing

and other market participants. Id.

With regard to Signature, in particular, the Complaint alleges that Calissio and

[Signature] converted Calissios debt into even more shares, which totaled approximately four

times the number of shares outstanding as of the June 30, 2015 record date. Id. 20.

Moreover, Signature, Calissio, and Carter conspired to keep this issuance silent. Id. 21.

Signature, Calissio, and Carter were also aware of the fact that DTCC was collecting dividends

for it on non-dividend eligible shares that Calissio and its affiliates had repurchased, but

intended to defraud the sellers, the clearing system, and indeed the marketplace by failing to

provide this information to DTCC or the sellers of those shares. Id. 31. Signature and the

other Defendants also benefited from this scheme by permitting Calissio and its affiliates to

purchase shares in Calissios buyback program for substantially less than the value of the

dividend payable on each share. Id. 32. Therefore, Signature and the other Defendants

caused the wrongful charging of Nobilis (through COR Clearing) of a dividend of over $3.3

million to which it was not entitled,and caused this same harm as to Beaufort in the amount of

nearly $700,000. Id. 49.

Based on these allegations, which are assumed to be true and construed in the light most

favorable to COR Clearing, the Complaint more than adequately states claims for declaratory

judgment and unjust enrichment against Signature. In particular, COR Clearings declaratory



4/11

Page 4of 11

judgment claim seeks a declaration that Signature and the other Defendants are not entitled to

over $4 million in dividends for the purchase of the shares from Nobilis [and Beaufort], and

therefore the $4 million debits were wrongfully made against COR Clearings account. Id.

52. Likewise, COR Clearingsunjust enrichment claim seeks restitution from Signature and

the other Defendants, since they received and accepted the benefit of the shares from Nobilis

and Beaufort, and some or all of the over $4 million from COR Clearing. Id. 56. COR

Clearing also seeks injunctive relief precluding Defendants from disposing of the [funds]. Id.

52, 60.

In light of the Complaints detailed allegations regarding Signatures participation and

role in the fraudulent dividend distribution scheme, Signatures arguments to the contraryall of

which lack any factual or legal supportshould be rejected.

First, Signature contends that the Complaint fails to allege any actions by [Signature]

that actually contributed to the error/glitch. Mot. at 4. However, as discussed above, the

Complaint alleges (among other things) that Calissioand [Signature] converted Calissios debt

into even more shares, which totaled approximately four times the number of shares outstanding

as of the June 30, 2015 record date,and conspired to keep this issuance silentin order to

exploit a weakness in DTCCs dividend payment system. Compl. 1, 20-21. Moreover,

Signatures suggestion that DTCC should have been named a defendant lacks merit. Mot. at 2,

4. Although the Complaint alleges weaknesses in DTCCs system, the Complaint further

describes how Signature and the other Defendants took advantage of those weaknesses to collect

dividends they were not entitled to receive. See Compl. 1, 31. In other words, the alleged

weakness in DTCCs system simply provides background for COR Clearings claimsagainst

Signature and the other Defendants.



5/11

Page 5of 11

Second, Signature asserts that [t]here are no allegations of [Signature] handling any

money let alone $700,000. Mot. at 4;see also Mot. at 5 (Plaintiffs Second Claim for Relief

. . . asserts unjust enrichment when [Signature] received no funds and none alleged in the

complaint.). To the contrary, the Complaint specifically alleges that Signature and the other

Defendants received and accepted the benefit of the shares from Nobilis and Beaufort, and

some or all of the over $4 million from COR Clearing. Compl. 56.

Third, Signature argues that paragraph 20 of the Complaint throws [Signature] in with

active participants Calissio and Carter (DTCC) with no facts alleging any actual wrongdoing by

[Signature]. Mot. at 4;see also Mot. at 5 (Plaintiffs First Claim for Relief simply lumps

[Signature] with the other defendants and makes no specific allegations of wrong doing by

[Signature].). As an initial matter, the Complaint alleges that Signature and the other

Defendants conspired to carry out the fraudulent dividend distribution scheme, and thus many of

the allegations in the Complaint apply to all three Defendants. See, e.g., id. 21. Moreover, in

any event, the Complaint includes numerous specific factual allegations concerning Signatures

participation and role in the fraudulent scheme. See, e.g., Compl. 13, 14, 20, 21, 31, 32, 49.

Accordingly, Signatures motion to dismiss COR Clearings First and Second Claims for

Relief should be denied. The allegations of the Complaint, which are presumed to be true and

construed in the light most favorable to COR Clearing, are more than sufficient to state these

claims under Rule 8s generous pleading standard.

II. THE COMPLAINT STATES A CLAIM FOR FRAUD UNDER RULE 9(B)

For the same reasons, Signaturesunfounded assertion that COR ClearingsThird Claim

for Relief (fraud) has absolutelyno compliance with Rule 9(b) should be denied. Rather, as

discussed below, the Complaint expressly alleges the who, what, where, when, and how of the



6/11

Page 6of 11

alleged fraud. See Mayer v. Countrywide Home Loans, 647 F.3d 789, 792 (8th Cir. 2011)

(citation omitted).

The Complaint satisfies the who requirement by allegingthat Signature was one of the

parties that actively perpetrated the fraudulent scheme in its role as Calissios transfer agent.

Compl. 70 (For its part in the fraudulent scheme, [Signature] acted as the instrumentality used

by the other Defendants to carry out the fraud. [Signature] should have known that not

all shares were entitled to dividends, but it kept this silent from purchasers and shareholders, and

it made no effort to alert DTCC of this dividend issue, allowing the other Defendants to

perpetrate the fraud without alerting their victims.).

The Complaint satisfies the what and how requirements by providing a detailed

account of the fraudulent dividend distribution scheme carried out by Signature and the other

Defendantsi.e., flooding the marketplace with additional common shares of Calissio stock that

were not dividend-eligible to take advantage of DTCCs procedures and collect improper

dividends. Compl. 17-33, 64-65.

The Complaint also alleged that this fraud took place in the marketplace in which

Calissio, COR Clearing, and Signature are all active players, with the harm directed at COR

Clearings account in Nebraska, satisfying the where requirement. Compl. 1, 15.

The when of the scheme is thoroughlypled, beginning with Calissios announcement

of its share buyback program on June 1, 2015, and going through the ex-dividend date of August

19, 2015 and DTCCs subsequent debiting of COR Clearings account on August 24, 2015.

Compl. 18-20, 24-25, 34, 39-40.

Therefore, Signatures motion to dismiss COR Clearings fraud claim should be denied

because the Complaint satisfies Rule 9(b)s heightened pleading standard.



7/11

Page 7of 11

III. SIGNATURE HAS SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEBRASKA TO SUBJECT

IT TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Finally, Signature wrongly contends that the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of

personal jurisdiction. SeeMot. at 2, 4-5. As discussed below, the allegations of the Complaint,

which are assumed to be true at the pleading stage, make clear that the injury giving rise to this

lawsuit occurred within the state of Nebraska. In addition, extrinsic evidence demonstrates that

Signature regularly conducts business with COR Clearing and its employees located in

Nebraska. Therefore, the Court should deny Signatures motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction.

To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must state

sufficient facts in the complaint to support a reasonable inference that the defendants can be

subjected to jurisdiction within the state. Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1072

(8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Although the plaintiff has the burden of proving facts

supporting personal jurisdiction, it need only make a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction

exists. Id.at 1072-73. The plaintiffs showing must be tested by both the pleadings and the

affidavits and exhibits presented with the motions and in opposition thereto.Id. When

considering these evidentiary materials, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff and resolve all factual conflicts in its favor. Pecoraro v. Sky Ranch for Boys, Inc.,

340 F.3d 558, 561 (8th Cir. 2003);see also Dever, 380 F.3d at 1076.

In determining whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Signature, two issues

must be considered: (1) whether the requirements of Nevadas long-arm statute have been

satisfied and (2) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Signature satisfies the

requirements of due process. Dever, 380 F.3dat 1073. BecauseNebraskas long-arm statute,

Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-536, has been interpreted to extend jurisdiction over nonresident



8/11

Page 8of 11

defendants to the fullest degree allowed by the Due Process Clause of the United States

Constitution, . . . the Court need only determine whether the assertion of jurisdiction offends

constitutional limits.J.D. Heiskel Holdings, LLC v. Trans Coastal Supply Co., No. 8:14-cv-

277, 2015 WL 751983, at *2 (D. Neb. Feb. 20, 2015) (citing Wagner v. Unicord Corp., 526

N.W.2d 74, 77-78 (Neb. 1995)).

Under the constitutional analysis, [d]ue process requires minimum contacts between

[a] non-resident defendant and the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Dever, 380 F.3d at 1073. Under the

theory of specific jurisdiction, which COR Clearing alleges in its Complaint, a court has personal

jurisdiction over a defendant if the injury giving rise to the lawsuit occurred within or had some

connection with the forum state. Id.(citingHelicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,

466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)).

Here, there can be no reasonable dispute that the injury giving rise to this lawsuit

occurred within Nebraska. As alleged in the Complaint, COR Clearing is a clearing and

settlement firm headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. Compl. 9-10. The Complaint further

alleges that Defendants, including Signature, purposefully directed their actions to Nebraska to

harm COR Clearing in this forum by having DTCC pursue COR Clearing for the [improper

dividend distribution] funds, which were paid from its accounts in Nebraska. Compl. 15.

Thus, based on the allegations of the Complaint, which are assumed to be true at the pleading

stage, Signatures intentional actsand participation in the fraudulent dividend distribution

scheme caused injury to COR Clearing in the state of Nebraska.

In addition, extrinsic evidence demonstrates that Signature regularly conducted business

with COR Clearing and its employees located at its headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. For



9/11

Page 9of 11

instance, Signatures President, Jason M. Bogutski, regularly communicates with COR Clearing

employees regarding the stocks that COR Clearing processes for Signature. See, e.g.,

Declaration of Colette Rex (Rex Decl.) 3-8, Exs. A-D (emails between Signatures

President and various COR Clearing employees located in Omaha, Nebraska). Signature and

COR Clearing also regularly mail each other certificates to assist the underlying shareholder of

the security in re-registering physical certificates or depositing book-entry shares. See, e.g., Rex

Decl. 3, 9-12, Exs. E-G (letters and shipping labels reflecting shipments of certificates from

Signature to COR Clearing in Omaha, Nebraska). Therefore, Signature was well aware that it

was conducting business with a Nebraska company, and that its participation in the fraudulent

dividend distribution scheme would inevitably cause injury in the state of Nebraska. See

Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 796 (8th Cir. 2010) (a court can establish specific jurisdiction

when a non-resident defendant performs tortious acts knowing that the consequences will be felt

in the forum state).

Signatures only argument against a finding of personal jurisdiction is that it has no

connection to Nebraska nor [is] any of its business related to any commercial activity in

Nebraska. Mot. at 4. However, Signatures argument is not only devoid of any factual or legal

supportSignature notably did not submit any declarations or exhibits in support of its

motionbut it is also squarely contradicted by the allegations of Complaint and the extrinsic

evidence discussed above, which unmistakably demonstrate that Signature purposefully availed

itself of the privilege of conducting business within Nebraska.

Accordingly, the Court should reject Signatures argument that the Complaint fails to

allege facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference of personal jurisdiction.



10/11

Page 10of 11

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court should deny Signatures motion to dismissin

its entirety.1

Dated: November 13, 2015 By: s/ Michael T. HilgersMichael T. Hilgers (#24483)[email protected] S. Dolton (#24221)[email protected] HILGERS PLLC14301 FNB Parkway, Suite 100Omaha, NE 68154

Telephone: (402) 218-2106Facsimile: (877) 437-5755

Attorneys for Plaintiff COR Clearing, LLC

1Should the Court determine that any of COR Clearings claims are not sufficient as currentlypled, it should dismiss such claims without prejudice, so that COR Clearing may remedy anysuch defects in an amended complaint. Michaelis v. Nev. State Bar Assn, 717 F.2d 437, 438-39(8th Cir. 1983);Laird v. Ramirez, 884 F. Supp. 1265, 1273-74 (D. Iowa 1995).



11/11

Page 11of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 13th day of November 2015, a true and

correct copy of the foregoing was filed via the Courts CM/ECF System, and was served on all

counsel of record.

_s/ Michael T. Hilgers_______________


show_temp.pdf

Documents