|
|
|
|
|
|
by 1vuio0pswjnm7
878 days ago
|
|
|
Indeed her decision rests on that finding. But according to the opinion, the issue was not what was included in the proxy statement, but what was left out. For example, details about those directors and their relationship with the CEO. Was that intentional? Call me crazy, but having the CEO's divorce lawyer as the General Counsel is impossible to ignore as a potential red flag. Why. There are only so many reasons he would be given the job and most of them are problematic. Was he in charge of preparing this proxy statement. |
|
|
Interesting context. (Note: I'm not from USA)