CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Files Motion to Add Wells Fargo in Lawsuit TYLER, Texas, Mar 01, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) --
A "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint" was filed Friday 2-26-2010 to the CMKM Diamonds, Inc. petition in Case # A-538649 asking the Court to allow the Company to add Wells Fargo, Stacy Ewing, Securities Transfer Agents Medallion Program (STAMP), First Global Stock Transfer, LLC, and Helen Bagley as Doe and Roe Defendants.
Wells Fargo was one of the depository institutions for John Edwards at the time Edwards was selling illegally obtained stock. Our investigation has revealed that an officer of Wells Fargo assisted Edwards in obtaining medallion guaranteed signature stamps on a large number of blank documents.
These documents were then used as supporting documents given to our transfer agent to have stock issued and in some cases transferred to Edwards, or companies under his control. Edwards' illegal activities occurred at a time that our own transfer agent was receiving cash payments described as loans. Banking records indicate that Edwards also maintained investment accounts at Wells Fargo during this time period. STAMP is a program approved by the Securities Transfer Association that enables participating financial institutions to guarantee signatures.
The Medallion programs ensure that the individual signing the certificate or stock power is in fact the registered owner as it appears on the stock certificate or stock power. The failure of Wells Fargo and STAMP to train and supervise those individuals that administer the medallion signature stamps made it possible for John Edwards and others to dilute the company and obtain several hundred billion illegally issued shares to be sold to the public.
By comparing the average trading price on the day these illegally issued shares were transferred into the Edwards' accounts, shares so transferred and ultimately sold by Edwards totaled an estimated $57 million dollars.
ON A PARALLEL NOTE, WE WILL SHORTLY PRESENT COMPREHENSIVE AND CONCLUSIVE LEGAL EVIDENCE THAT ALL, REPEAT ALL (I.E. 100%) SECURITISATION IS ILLEGAL, REPEAT ILLEGAL, UNDER U.S LAW, WHICH MEANS THAT ALL THE CONVOLUTED ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE TREASURY AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO ACCOMMODATE DUBIOUS SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, AND ALL THE NEW ARRANGEMENTS BEING MADE AT BREAKNECK SPEED TO RESUME OR INTENSIFY SECURITISATION OPERATIONS (FRAUDULENT FINANCE) TRADING, ARE ILLEGAL, REPEAT ILLEGAL, UNDER U.S. LAW. THERE ARE NO REDEEMING FEATURES.
Asset-backed securities are securities that are secured or “backed” by pools of various types of assets on which cash payments are due at fixed intervals over set periods of time. Asset-backed securities are created in a process called securitization. In a securitization transaction, an originator of loans or an owner of accounts receivable of a certain type of asset class sells such underlying assets in a “true sale” to a special purpose entity, so that there is no recourse to such originator or owner. Payments of principal and interest on asset-backed securities typically are tied to payments made on the pool of underlying assets in the related securitization. Such payments on the underlying assets are effectively “passed through” to the asset-backed security holders on a monthly or other regular, periodic basis. The level of seniority of a particular asset-backed security will determine the priority in which the holder of such asset-backed security is paid, relative to other security holders and parties in such securitization. Examples of underlying assets include consumer loans or receivables, home equity loans, automobile loans or leases, and timeshares, although other types of receivables or assets also may be used as underlying assets.
While asset-backed securities typically have a fixed, stated maturity date, low prevailing interest rates may lead to an increase in the prepayments made on the underlying assets. This may cause the outstanding balances due on the underlying assets to be paid down more rapidly. As a result, a decrease in the originally anticipated interest from such underlying securities may occur, causing the asset-backed securities to pay-down in whole or in part prior to their original stated maturity date. Prepayment proceeds would then have to be reinvested at the lower prevailing interest rates. Conversely, prepayments on the underlying assets may be less than anticipated, causing an extension in the duration of the asset-backed securities.
Delinquencies or losses that exceed the anticipated amounts for a given securitization could adversely impact the payments made on the related asset-backed securities. This is a reason why, as part of a securitization, asset-backed securities are often accompanied by some form of credit enhancement, such as a guaranty, insurance policy, or subordination. Credit protection in the form of derivative contracts may also be purchased. In certain securitization transactions, insurance, credit protection, or both may be purchased with respect to only the most senior classes of asset-backed securities, on the underlying collateral pool, or both. The extent and type of credit enhancement varies across securitization transactions.
In addition to the normal risks associated with debt securities discussed elsewhere in this SAI and the Prospectus(es), asset- backed securities carry additional risks including, but not limited to, the possibility that (i) the pace of payments on underlying assets may be faster or slower than anticipated or payments may be in default; (ii) the creditworthiness of the credit support provider may deteriorate; and (iii) such securities may become less liquid or harder to value as a result of market conditions or other circumstances.
Progress is being made in the Casavant lawsuit. Various parties have now been served with publication and the Company will be proceeding with default judgments shortly against those that have not answered. CMKM attorneys met with attorneys for Roger Glenn last week and have agreed to a Case Conference report which will be submitted to the trial judge as is customary in Nevada courts. The parties will then be operating under a somewhat structured time line as to future discovery including depositions and other matters. The Company intends to disclose thousands of pages of documents to Mr. Glenn's attorneys this week as part of the required initial disclosures. The Company should in turn receive from Mr. Glenn any documents he and his attorneys feel are required to be disclosed under local rules."
In the 7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT Smith County, Texas Cause No. 08-2214-A
CMKM DIAMONDS INC. VS. CORRINE WARD, ET AL
Filed on 09/05/2008 Case Type: OTHER Current Status: Disposed Disposition: 04/20/2010 - FINAL JUDGMENT
DEFENDANT DEFENDANT Attorneys Ward, Corrine Reid, Eric Reid, Margaret Casavant, Carolyn Casavant, Dale Liles, Todd J 2001 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 4000 DALLAS,TEXAS 75201 Casavant, Ron Casavant, Victor Casavant, Max
PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF Attorneys Cmkm Diamonds Inc Frizzell, Bill 602 SOUTH BROADWAY TYLER, TEXAS 75701
Disposition Party Name 02/02/2010 - NON-SUIT CASAVANT, DALE
Judgment Party Name 02/02/2010 CASAVANT, DALE
Events and Orders of the Court 04/20/2010 JUDGMENT 03/25/2010 ORDER SETTING HEARING 03/25/2010 DEFAULT JUDGMENT 03/25/2010 MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED SERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED SERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 03/24/2010 CITATION RETURNED UNSERVED 02/02/2010 ORDER PARTIAL NON-SUIT 02/02/2010 MOTION TO DISMISS 02/01/2010 ORDER 09/15/2009 RULE 11 AGREEMENT 09/09/2009 NOTICE OF FILING OF REMOVAL 09/04/2009 SCHEDULING ORDER 09/04/2009 MEDIATION ORDER 08/21/2009 SPECIAL APPEARANCE 08/21/2009 ORIGINAL ANSWER 08/14/2009 ORDER TO RETAIN CASE ON DOCKET 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 CITATION ISSUED 08/13/2009 1ST AMENDED PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 07/30/2009 MOTION TO RETAIN CASE ON DOCKET 07/30/2009 REQUEST FOR SETTING 06/29/2009 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 CITATION ISSUED 09/05/2008 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION