Final answer:
Brighty can claim the status of a holder in due course if they genuinely had no knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the instruments at the time of purchase, despite widespread publicity. Being a holder in due course requires acquiring the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice of any problems. Publicity alone does not prevent HDC status if the holder was truly unaware.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to whether Brighty can claim the position of a holder in due course (HDC) of the fraudulent negotiable instruments despite the widespread publicity of the scam. Generally, a holder in due course is a party who acquires a negotiable instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue, has been dishonored, or is encumbered with any claim or defense by any party. The pivotal factor here is the absence of knowledge ('without notice') about the fraud or issues related to the negotiable instruments.
If Brighty genuinely had no knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the instruments at the time of purchase and there's evidence to support that claim, such as not hearing the news reports, then Brighty could potentially be considered a holder in due course. There are strict requirements for this defense, and it is fact-specific. For instance, if a reasonable person in Brighty's position should have known of the fraud, or if there were obvious signs that a prudent investor would have recognized, then the status of holder in due course may be challenged. Nonetheless, the mere publicity of the scam does not automatically preclude someone from achieving HDC status if they genuinely did not have notice of the problems with the instruments.