Coral Capital Announces Relationship with TechPerts, Inc.

Coral Capital Partners Announces Relationship with TechPerts, Inc.

Coral Capital Partners is proud to announce that it has entered into a collaborative relationship with TechPerts, Inc., a Chicago, Illinois based firm focused on providing technology consultants and expert witnesses to law firms and other parties. This is a significant expansion of our due diligence, acquisition searches, and valuation services.  We believe that the collaborative agreement with TechPerts will allow Coral Capital to expand the services offered to our clients by making the resources of TechPerts available part of the package of services offered.  We believe that our clients and prospective clients will find this of tremendous value and benefit.

TechPerts has provided experts in a wide variety of technical areas, including but not limited to:

  • Telecommunications
  • Computer design and networking
  • Wireless communications
  • Internet implementation and development
  • Product design and development
  • Computer hardware and software
  • Semiconductors
  • Electronics
  • Robotics
  • Biotechnology
  • Other high-tech disciplines

Techperts‘ experts have provided consulting services and expert testimony on matters including:

  • Patent litigation
  • Patent valuations
  • Prior art searches
  • Copyright infringement
  • Theft of trade secrets
  • Contract disputes
  • Intellectual property litigation
  • Pre-litigation investigations

Since its founding in 2007, TechPerts has established itself and demonstrated its ability by building an impressive client list which includes major law firms throughout the United States.

For additional information on how Coral Capital Partners or TechPerts may be of service to you or your firm, please feel free to contact us for additional information.

Trial Brief – Uniform Commerical Code: UCC 8-401

Trial Brief – Uniform Commercial Code:  UCC- 8-401

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was 1st published in 1952.  It is one of a number of uniform acts that are part of efforts to the laws relating to commerce in all 50 states in the US.  The various laws comprising the UCC are state laws.  Article 8 of the UCC deals with Investment Securities.  As a general rule, simple disputes involving securities relating to Article 8 are normally litigated in state courts, which can be far more difficult to research than the federal court system.  Based upon our research, it appears that litigation involving Article 8 of the UCC in the Federal Court system is relatively rare. As result, we have decided to publish the Trial Brief of our litigation against Sun River Energy, Inc. involving a dispute involving Article  8, Section 401 of the UCC.  Hopefully, this provide some useful information to anyone who is involved in a dispute over the removal of a restrictive legend and Article 8, Section 401, UCC 8-401.  It should be noted that we prevailed in our litigation, and were awarded damages against Sun River Energy, Inc., as evidenced by a copy of the Judgement found here: (Sun_River_Energy_Judgment).  Additionally, a pdf copy of this Trial Brief is available here:  (Trial_Brief).

 


 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00198-MSK-MEH

SUN RIVER ENERGY, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

ERIK S. NELSON;
STEVE STEPHENS; and
CORAL CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.,

Defendants

DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

Defendants Erik S. Nelson, Steve Stephens, and Coral Capital Partners, Inc., through counsel, M. Gabriel McFarland and Cyd Hunt of Evans & McFarland, LLC, respectfully submit this Trial Brief:
Only two claims remain for trial, Defendants‘ counterclaim against Sun River for violating C.R.S. § 4-8-401 by refusing to remove the restrictive legends from Defendants‘ Sun River stock certificates, and their related request for declaratory judgment.

VIOLATION OF C.R.S. § 4-8-401

When a shareholder is issued a stock certificate displaying a restrictive legend, he must request the issuance of a replacement certificate with the legend removed before he can trade the stock.    See American Securities Transfer, Incorp. v. Pantheon Indus., Inc. 871 F. Supp. 400, 405 (D. Colo. 1994) (“The provisions of [§ 401] apply to the request to reissue the certificate here [without the restrictive legend] as this is a predicate for transfer of the certificate.”   The statutory obligations on the issuing entity are the same, whether the request is to register a stock transfer or to remove a restrictive legend.  See id. at 405; Clancy Systems Intern., Inc. v. Salazar, 177 P.3d 1235, 1238-39 (Colo. 2008) (“The remedy provided by the code for loss resulting from a wrongful restriction on a person’s ability to alienate a security is therefore the same, whether the loss is caused by the issuer’s unreasonable failure to officially acknowledge a transferee’s unrestricted ownership by book entry alone [a transfer], or also by refusing to issue a new, unrestricted certificate in his name.“); Fink v. Atlas Stock Transfer Corp., No. B215103, 2010 WL 4887179, *6 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. Dec. 2, 2010) (n.s.o.p.)  (“[A] request to issue a new certificate is equivalent to a request to register a transfer of the underlying stock. . . .where the stock is restricted, the issuance of a new, clean certificate to the transferor [owner] is normally the essential first step.”).

Section 401 both enumerates the circumstances in which an issuer is duty- bound to register a transfer and specifically imposes liability on the issuer for violating that duty.”  Clancy Systems, 177 P.3d at 1237-38.   In the instance of an improper restrictive legend, the statute imposes liability on the issuer  “for merely acting unreasonably.”   Id. at 1239.

A.   Elements of the claim

An issuer is under a duty to register a transfer of a security if the seven elements of section (a) are met.”  Ajjarapu v. AE Biofuels, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1165 (D. Colo. 2010).  The elements of a claim for violation of C.R.S. § 4-8-101(a) are:

1.  “Under the terms of the security the person seeking registration is eligible to have the security registered in its name.”

If the company that issued the securities is a “reporting company” in that it is subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the holder of a restricted certificate is eligible to have the security registered in his or her name— i.e., to have the shares reissued without the restrictive legend—after the passage of six months from issuance of the restricted certificate.  See 17 C.F.R. 230.144(b)(1)(i); Stuckey v. Online Resources Corp., 909 F. Supp. 2d 912, 944 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (expiration of Rule 144 holding period renders owner eligible to request removal of restrictive legend); accord, Sherwood Brands, Inc. v. Levie, No. RDB 03–1544, 2006 WL 827371, *19 (D. Md. March 24, 2006).

2. “The indorsement or instruction is made by the appropriate person or by an agent who has actual authority to act on behalf of the appropriate person.”

“‘Indorsement‘ means a signature that alone or accompanied by other words is made on a security certificate in registered form or on a separate document for the purpose of assigning, transferring, or redeeming the security. . .”  C.R.S. § 4-8- 102(a)(11). The “appropriate person” is the person specified by the security certificate. C.R.S. § 4-8-107(a)(1).

3. “Reasonable assurance is given that the indorsement or instruction is genuine and authorized.”

The issuer of the subject security “may require” assurances that the indorsement is genuine and authorized. C.R.S. § 4-8-402(a).    Because an issuer is liable for wrongful registration of a transfer if an indorsement is improper, the issuer is allowed, but not required, to request reasonable assurances of genuineness and authority.  C.R.S. § 4-8-402, Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. “Genuine” means free of forgery or counterfeiting. C.R.S. § 4-1-201(a)(18). “Authorization” refers to the indorsing party‘s status as an appropriate person.  See, e.g., Wilbert, Inc. v. Robb, No. 83 C 6428, 1986 WL 2092, *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 1986) (order appointing executrix of security owner‘s estate was appropriate assurance that she was authorized indorser).  Upon presentment of indorsements under reasonable assurances, the issuer must register the transfer. Id. at *2 (issuer “has not stated that adverse claims have been asserted as to the ownership of this stock, nor has it given any reason why [requesting party‘s] evidence should not be accepted.“).

Under C.R.S. § 4-8-114(1), “Unless specifically denied in the pleadings, each signature on a security certificate or in a necessary indorsement is admitted.

4. “Any applicable law relating to the collection of taxes has been complied with.”

The requesting stockholder must be in compliance with relevant tax law.

5. “The transfer does not violate any restriction on transfer imposed by the issuer in accordance with section 4-8-204.”

C.R.S. § 4-8-204 provides that, to be effective, a restriction on a certificated security must be conspicuously noted on the certificate.  An issuer cannot rely on an “unnoted restriction” in refusing to register a transfer. See Edina State Bank v. Mr. Steak, Inc., 487 F.2d 640, 644 (10th Cir. 1973) (finding issuer liable for refusal to register transfer based on asserted restriction that did not appear on certificate, court noted duty is on issuer to display restriction, not on owner to inquire).

A typical restriction states that the securities represented by the certificate have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and may not be sold or otherwise disposed of unless they are so registered, or an opinion of counsel is obtained that the proposed disposition is in compliance with a recognized exemption from registration. E.g., Hefter & Carroll v. Abraham, No. 07C4137, 2007 WL 3334349, *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2007). This opinion of counsel is known as a “Rule 144 letter.” E.g., Rice v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 113 Fed. Appx. 116, 120 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Generally speaking, under SEC Rule 144, restricted stock may not be sold unless the issuing corporation files a letter with the SEC certifying that the shares have been held for more than [the required period] and that the number of shares to be sold does not exceed one percent of the total shares outstanding.”).

6. “A demand that the issuer not register transfer has not become effective under section 4-8-403, or the issuer has complied with section 4-8-403(b) but no legal process or indemnity bond is obtained as provided in section 4-8-403(d).”

C.R.S. § 4-8-403 provides that “an appropriate person to make an indorsement or originate an instruction” may notify the issuer of a demand that a transfer not be registered. An “appropriate person” is the person specified by the security certificate.  C.R.S. § 4-8-107(a)(1).  If such a demand is made, the issuer must promptly communicate any request to register a transfer of the security to the demanding party, and notify both the demanding party and the party requesting registration that the registration will be withheld for a period of time not to exceed thirty days in order for the demanding party to obtain legal process or post a bond to stay the transfer. The purpose of this section of the statute is “to alleviate the problems faced by registered owners of certificated securities who lose or misplace their certificates.”  Id., Uniform Commercial Code Comment 2.  Thus, the owner who has lost his certificate notifies the issuer of the missing security, and the issuer must contact the owner if the original certificate is later presented for registration.  Id.

In contrast, in the case of a demand by anyone who is not the registered owner of the stock but claims an interest in it, “if there has been an effective indorsement1  or instruction, a person who contends that registration of the transfer would be wrongful should not be able to interfere with the registration process merely by sending notice of the assertion to the issuer.   Rather, the adverse claimant must obtain legal process” pursuant to C.R.S. § 4-8-404, i.e., by obtaining an injunction or restraining order against the issuer.    Id., Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1.  “[T]he present version of section 8-404 ensures that the rights of registered owners and the duties of issuers with respect to registration of transfer will be protected against third-party interference in the same fashion as other rights of registered ownership.”  C.R.S. § 4-8-404, Uniform Commercial Code Comment 3.

In the instance of adverse claims to the stocks, the role of the issuer “is one of neutrality between the claimants.”  Bender v. Memory Metals, Inc., 514 A.2d 1109, 1117 (Del. Ch. 1986). “Such a neutral position is consistent with the fiduciary position that the corporation occupies with respect to the presenting shareholder.”  Id.

7. “The transfer is rightful or is to a protected purchaser.”

A transfer is not rightful if it violates the 1933 Securities Act; thus, the transfer agent may require a showing that the transfer does not violate the Act, such as a legal opinion letter to that effect, i.e., a Rule 144 letter.  See Fink, 2010 WL 4887179 at *6; see also Charter Oak Bank & Trust Co. v. Registrar & Transfer Co., 358 A.2d 505, 509 (N.J. Super. 1976) (“Where reasonable grounds exist to believe a proposed transfer might be a ‘wrongful’ transfer under the Securities Act, a transfer agent is justified in refusing to make the requested transfer and requesting further information to show that the transfer can be made in accordance with federal law.“).  Concomitantly, a rightful transfer is one that complies with, or is exempt from, the requirements of Rule 144. Bender, 514 A.2d at 1116.

B.    C.R.S. § 4-8-401(b): “If an issuer is under a duty to register a transfer of a security, the issuer is liable to a person presenting a certificated security2 or an instruction for registration or to the person’s principal for loss resulting from unreasonable delay in registration or failure or refusal to register the transfer.”

The securities issuer is liable for any loss resulting from its refusal or failure to register a requested transfer or for any unreasonable delay in doing so.  Ajjarapu, 728  F. Supp. 2d at 1164; Clancy, 177 P.3d at 1238.  When a transaction is rightful, the issuer‘s refusal to remove a restrictive legend may be unreasonable as a matter of law. See Bender, 514 A.2d at 1116. An issuer who “without reasonable justification” refuses to register a transfer does so “at its own peril.” Loretto Literary & Benevolent Inst. v. Blue Diamond Coal Co., 444 A.2d 256, 261 (Del. Ch. 1982) (?[A] refusal to register a transfer must be based on a legitimate ground supported by some credible evidence.?)

A proper reading of the statute [8-401] is that the right to compel registration and  the  right  to  recover  damages  from  the  delay or  refusal  to  register  are  cumulative remedies.”    Burtman  v.  Technical  Chemicals  and  Products,  Inc.,  724  So.2d  672,  675-76 (Fla.  App.  1999)  (8-401  specifies  both  that  the  issuer  “shall  register”  a  transfer  upon proper  presentation  and  that  the  issuer  is  liable  for  loss  resulting from  refusal  to  do  so).

The stockholder may be awarded both specific performance and damages for diminution of the fair market value of the stock between the date of the refusal to register and the date judgment enters.   See, e.g., Fenoglio v. Augat, Inc., No. Civ.A. 97-10012-PBS, 2000 WL 294882, *1 (D. Mass. March 16, 2000) (awarding specific performance and damages for refusing request to exercise stock options); Steranko v. Inforex, Inc., 362 N.E. 2d 222, 232 (Mass. App. 1977) (stockholder entitled to specific performance of removal of restrictive legends and damages for diminution of value in stock) (applying New York law).

C.    Conclusion

The unreasonable refusal to remove restrictive legends from stock certificates subjects the stock issuer to equitable and legal liability.  The issuer may be ordered to remove the legends, and the stockholder may be awarded the diminution in the value of his stock during the period of the wrongful refusal.

DATED this 16th day of October, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

EVANS & MCFARLAND, LLC

By: s/ Cyd Hunt
Cyd Hunt
M. Gabriel McFarland
Evans & McFarland, LLC
910 13th St., #200
Golden, CO 80401
Telephone: 303.279.8300
Facsimile: 303.277.1620
Email: gmcfarland@emlawyers.com
chunt@emlawyers.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ERIK S. NELSON, STEVE STEPHENS, AND CORAL CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 16, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to at least the following via e-mail:

James E. Pennington

s/Cyd Hunt     
Cyd Hunt

Coral Capital Partners Victorious in Sun River Energy Litigation

Coral Capital Partners Victorious in Sun River Energy Litigation

Coral Capital Partners is pleased to  announce that on October 23rd, 2013 after nearly a 3 year legal battle (Civil Action No. 11-CV-00198-MSK-MEH) with Sun River Energy, Inc. Judge Marcia Krieger, Chief Justice of the Federal Court for the Colorado District ruled in favor of Coral Capital Partners, Inc, Erik Nelson, and Steve Stephens in its litigation with Sun River Energy, Inc. (OTC: ‘SNRV’).

This is one blog article we would really have preferred not to have written for a variety of reasons.  However, due to the way that Sun River Energy pursued this litigation, including the wildly outrageous and unsubstantiated claims made against us by Sun River Energy, we are left feeling compelled to set the record straight.  Additionally there are numerous web sites that claim to provide information regarding lawsuits that are not up to date, and have not kept current with respects to this litigation.  They are basically misrepresenting the facts and the status of the case by continuously referencing a hearing very early on in the litigation and do not reflect the final outcome of the litigation. A copy of the judgment against Sun River Energy, Inc. can be found here (Sun_River_Energy_Judgment)

The judgement is pretty clear,  the Court ruled in our favor, and against Sun River Energy.  All of Sun River Energy’s claims against us were dismissed, as is confirmed by the Court Minutes, a copy of which can be found here (Sun_River_Trial_Minutes).

For the Record: 

In the Federal Court, District of Colorado, Case # , Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Coral Capital Partners, Inc. et al, on October 23rd, 2013 Judge Marcia Kreiger entered a judgement in favor of Coral Capital Partners, Inc., Erik S. Nelson, and Steve Stephens in the amount of $217,596 and ruled that the restrictive legend on the shares of Sun River Energy, Inc. common stock held by Nelson and Stephens shall be removed and the shares shall be issued without restrictive legend.  A copy of that ruling and judgment is available at the link found above.  Prior to the trial, Sun River Energy announced that it had decided not to pursue any and all of its claims against us.  At trial, all of Sun River Energy’s claims against Coral Capital Partners, Inc., Erik S. Nelson, and Steve Stephens were Dismissed with Prejudice.  Additionally it should be noted that the Court sanctioned Sun River Energy’s attorney’s James Pennington and Steven Csajaghy for failure to to turn over to us the D&O Insurance Policy as required by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.  More on this below.

A Little History on How We Got Here:

In 2007, Sun River Energy was small publicly traded company whose shares traded on the Bulletin Board portion of the Over-the-Counter (OTC) Market.  In late 2007, Coral Capital Partners was engaged by Sun River Energy to develop a business plan and financial model for the company, which we did.  We even located an investment bank that submitted a Letter of Intent (LOI) to Sun River Energy to raise additional capital for drilling purposes.  At that point in time Sun River Energy owned mineral rights on approximately 155,000 acres of land in Colfax County, New Mexico; and had just drilled three (3) test wells into a coal bed methane formation located on part of the property.  Sun River Energy was unable to execute the LOI due to a lack of capital. Sun River was also unable to pay us for our work due not having sufficient capital.  In the summer of 2008, we reluctantly agreed to accept shares of Sun River Energy’s common stock instead of the agreed upon cash fee. I would like to emphasize that the issuance of us stock instead of the previously agreed upon cash fee was an offer that Sun River Energy approached us with, and requested that we accept.  Shortly we accepted the shares, a new consultant began to exert a strong influence over Sun River Energy.

We waited the appropriate time required by Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933 before we requested the removal of the restrictive legend on the shares we had been issued.  We instantly received a request that we only remove the restrictive legend on a portion of the shares we received; feeling that we were still on good terms with the Sun River we agreed to the request.  Starting with our very first sale of shares, we began receiving threatening telephone calls from the new consultant demanding we stop selling shares of Sun River Energy’s common stock, and that we only sell after we had received permission from him.  We considered these requests an attempt at  market manipulation and a violation of our rights as shareholders of the company.  Throughout 2009 and 2010, we sold the balance of our unrestricted common stock position in a series of trades in small quantities, believing that the long term prospects of the company were good we avoided any large scale liquidation of our position.

In roughly mid 2010 we began the process of having the restrictive legend removed from the rest of our position.  By then, new management had assumed control of Sun River Energy; they refused our request to have the restrictive legend removed from our shares, claiming the company did not have securities counsel, yet they were and remained current in their filings with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  For those who are unaware, it is customary to have an attorney issue a legal opinion stating that the removal of the restrictive legend is permissible under Rule 144.  Since, Sun River Energy was claiming that it did not have securities counsel capable of rendering a legal opinion on the removal of the restrictive legend on our shares, we obtained our own.  We then had the shares deposited into our brokerage accounts.  As customary, the clearing firms reached out to the transfer agent to inquire about the eligibility to have the restrictive legend removed.  Sun River informed the transfer agent, that it would not honor the request to have the restrictive legend removed from our shares.  We succeeded in having the clearing firms deliver our certificates to the transfer agent for Sun River.  This started the clock on the 30 day time limit to remove the restrictive legend under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

Section 8-403 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requires a company or its agent to process a transfer request within 30 days of receipt of notice of file suit to halt the transfer.  At the end of the 30 day time period, rather remove the restrictive legend from our shares,  Sun River chose to file a suit in Colorado State Court against us than allow us to sell our shares.  We did not have a sense of humor, we removed the lawsuit to Federal Court and filed our own counter-claims.  A copy of our answer to their amended complaint and our amended counter-claims can be found here (Coral_Capital’s_Counter-Claims_Against_Sun_River_Energy)

The Litigation: 

This lawsuit should have been a simple suit concerning section 8-403 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  However, Sun River Energy chose to strike first and make it as nasty as possible.  They basically threw every wild allegation they could into their complaint, even claiming that the financial information contained in their SEC filings was material non-public information.  (The very fact that it is in their SEC filings makes it public information – More on this later).  In depositions, Sun River’s designated witness admitted that most of its claims had no merit or there was no evidence to back them up.  Yet, they continued to litigate in the nastiest of manners.  Then right before trial, Sun River announced that it would not pursue its remaining claims against us. As a result, all of Sun River’s claims against us were Dismissed With Prejudice by Judge Krieger.

The Trial: 

We proceeded to trial based upon our claims under section 8-403 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  The trial was held on October 23rd, 2013. We dutifully proved the required elements of qualification for having the restrictive legend removed as required by 8-403.  It should be noted that information on UCC 8-403 is surprisingly hard to find.  We think that this is because UCC 8-403 is very clear, and seldom litigated.  When we get a chance, we will post our brief on UCC 8-403, our courtroom notes, and the Judge Kreiger’s opinion.  I will update this post with a link to that posting.  Hopefully this will help provide some additional information with respects to UCC 8-403.

The Ruling and Judgment: 

Judge Krieger very clearly ruled in our favor.  She dismissed all of Sun River’s claims against us with prejudice.  She ruled in our favor and awarded us damages in the amount of $217,596  We have ordered a copy of the transcript of her ruling and will post it upon our receipt.

Stipulation to Legal Fees: 

The sate of Colorado has not yet enacted tort reform, and as a result it follows the American Rule, under which parties to litigation generally must pay their own attorney’s fees and costs.  However, due to what we considered the frivolous nature of Sun River Energy’s complaint and the manner in which they conducted themselves during the period prior to the trial, we threatened to file a motion under Rule 11 for recover of legal fees due to frivolous litigation.  Sun River obviously must have felt there was validity to our claims, as they agreed to a stipulation of $100,000 in legal fees to be paid to us. A copy of the order on the stipulation to attorney’s fees can be found here (Judgment_Stipulating_to_Attorney_Fees).

Sun River’s Attorneys Sanctioned by the Court:

Interestingly enough,  Sun River Energy had a D&O insurance policy that would have covered their legal expenses and the judgment against the company.  However, they failed to notify their D&O insurance carrier.  Somewhat of a strange thing to do, something that is somewhat tough to understand.  That is, until you realize that if Sun River Energy would have notified their insurance company, then it would have been the insurance company’s decision to continue the lawsuit or to settle it.  It is reasonable to think that a prudent or rational group of individuals would have notified their insurance company and reduced their risk to a lawsuit.  But Sun River did not do this.  It might also be reasonable to think that the reason that the reason Sun River Energy failed to notify their insurance carrier is that they did not want to risk the insurance company settling a lawsuit it new the company could not win.  Worse yet, Sun River Energy provided its attorneys with a copy of the insurance policy and they failed to provide us with a copy of it. AS a result of this activity we were forced to file motions to compel its production, after which we finally received a copy.

As a result of this activity Federal Magistrate Judge Hegerty sanctioned Sun River Energy by awarding us a judgment in the case.  Sun River appealed, and Judge Kreiger ruled on their appeal at trial.  In ruling she delivered her opinion that the fault was with Sun River’s attorneys for failing to turn over the insurance policy to us.  She sanctioned them with a judgment for damages, and reversed the ruling against Sun River.  The  Court Minutes available above document the sanctions against Mr. Pennington and Csajaghy.  Since this was a rather lengthy and drawn out process, I will go into this in greater detail in another post.  Following the publication of that post, I will update this posting with a link that discussion.

Other Sun River Energy Litigation: 

Our litigation was not litigation that Sun River Energy has been involved in.  Our research has indicated that Sun River Energy has been involved in over a dozen lawsuits since 2008.  Many of these lawsuits have been initiated against shareholders after they attempted to have the restrictive legend removed from their shares or sell shares they purchased in the public markets.  In addition to the lawsuit involving us, we are aware of the following lawsuits involving Sun River Energy and shareholders of its common stock.

  1. LPC Investments v. Sun River Energy, Inc. (Jefferson County, Colorado  No. 2008CV5328)
  2. LPC Investments LLC. v. Sun River Energy, Inc. (Jefferson County, Colorado No. 2009CV4859)
  3. Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Nova Leasing, LLC. et al (District Court of Dallas County, Texas No. DC-11-02692)
  4. Nova Leasing, LLC. v. Sun River Energy, Inc. et al. (US District Court, Colorado No. 11-CV-00689-CMA-BNB)
  5. Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Mirador Consulting, Inc, et al (US District Court, Texas No. 11-CV-01132-K)
  6. Shareholder Derivative Action on Behalf of Sun River Energy v. Sun River Energy (Nominal Defendant) v. et al.  (District Court of Dallas County, Texas No. DC-12-06318)

These are just the shareholder lawsuits we are aware of.  There has also been numerous lawsuits involving Sun River Energy resulting from its other business activities and the way management has conducted itself. In all, we believe there has been close to 15 or more lawsuits that we have been able to find.  It is quite a list.  We will provide the full list in a separate post.  Once we have done so, we will update this post with a link to our updated list.

Our Legal Counsel:

We would very much like to thank our legal counsel whose representation served us very well in this litigation.  We greatly appreciate the representation by Gerald Kline of Cohen Pollock Merlin & Small, PC. and Gabe McFarland of Evans & McFarland, LLC., as well as Mr. McFarland’s staff. We highly recommend both of these attorney’s to anyone who is in need of representation on these issues.  Mr. Kline is based here in Atlanta, Georgia. His office telephone # is (770)-858-1288.  Mr. McFarland is based in Golden, Colorado.  His office telephone # is (303)-279-8300.

www.coralcapital.com

If you have any questions about the above blog post, please feel free to visit our web site, www.coralcapital.com and check out we have to offer.  Feel free to contact us if you have any questions.  We can be reached at 404-816-9220 and are always willing to speak with you.

About Coral Capital Partners

Coral Capital Partners is an independent consulting and advisory firm focused on companies and participants in the lower and middle markets. We partner with our clients to provide cost effective solutions to real world issues and situations. Our experienced team brings a diverse set of skills that allows us to service a wide variety of needs.  Our area of services and expertise focuses on bringing services and solutions to our clients that are normally only available to much larger firms.  Coral Capital Partners, Inc.  provides services to Investment Banks,  Private Equity Funds, investors, and both privately held and publicly traded companies, as well as various stakeholders in those organizations.  This has included international public companies with operations on three (3) continents to smaller privately held domestic companies.  Our experience in the areas of corporate advisory, due diligence reviews, and regulatory compliance allows for a cost effective and efficient solution to the issues at hand.  Please feel free to contact our offices to see how we may be of assistance,