Quote from: lithiumus on September 09, 2016, 06:58:39 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on September 09, 2016, 06:37:13 PM

Not to mention that the "corporate entity Defendants" are defunct and Defendant Fraser knows that very well, what with being a co-owner and all.

So I'm no legal expert by any means... but just because a company is NOW defunct does not mean that it wasn't fully operational and fully staffed at the time in which it operated during the time period this complaint refers to. If you were part of that defunct organization should not mean that you are no longer responsible for participating in the alleged crimes at the time right?

I can't be party to crimes at an organization... move on to a new organization while the other is defunct and be free and clear just because it's "defunct" or no longer in operations or exists... That makes no sense. I submit that ANY and ALL previous persons associated with that NOW defunct organization be called out and required to defend against this and stand trial (so to speak).

This is not about that. Fraser is using the fact that the companies haven't been served as an excuse for the extension, which is ridiculous considering that the companies have already been served (via some mailbox in Delaware) by the SEC in another case and did not respond. Same thing will probably happen here so that service is just a useless waste of time and money. If they want to bring others into the lawsuit they will have to serve them individually.