jbk1234 wrote:Godymas wrote:jbk1234 wrote:
You're clearly not an attorney and you don't know what you're talking about. The board members have fiduciary duties to the investors. They have statutory duties to creditors once they know, or should know, the company is at risk of insolvency. You very much cannot just hand out the company's money because it's not your money.
I don't know what I'm talking about? You don't understand why people incorporate, it's to protect their personal assets. In America's financial system, you only lose what you put in. If Aspiration paid a consultant $1 million dollars for some powerpoints, how is that any different. The deliverable is the powerpoint, unfortunately for the investors you cannot liquidate the asset of a powerpoint for the same market value in return, but that company that delivered the powerpoint won't be expected to pay something back because they have a rightful deliverable and there is no proof of coercion or any sort of under the table deal that led to them paying for this. In this case the deliverable for Kawhi Leonard as a sports media figure was simply his endorsement, yes that's how the world works.
With the Kawhi Leonard situation you are insinuating that there was some under the table deal for Kawhi Leonard to be paid less in the NBA for more money, mind you he's currently making 35% of the salary cap aka he is NOT being underpaid at all in the NBA, he's actually making exactly what he should. That alone is enough to rule out the notion of an "under the table deal" I scratch yours you scratch because where the hell is the benefit for Ballmer, other than retaining Kawhi Leonard on a supermax extension. The idea that Ballmer invested money into this company just for it to get funneled back to Leonard is ABSURD.
The company paid $300 million to the Clippers as part of partnership for the Intuit Dome, it's natural that they would also sponsor the highest paid player.
Thank you, because I've now read the article from ESPN that shares more details and am now even less convinced that there was any aspect of Kawhi doing something wrong. When you look at the names of people that invested into this company it is so clear that this was a massive LA network event of people who were hopping what they believed was a good idea. The CEO stated there were obligations that Kawhi Leonard had to meet as part of his sponsorship with this company, the fact that the company went under basically frees Kawhi's of those obligations, clearly they never got around to enforcing them.
The fraud of Sanberg, it sucks that it happened, and Sanberg can be federally charged, anyone who assisted Sanberg can be federally charged and potentially held somewhat liable for what they defrauded. The entire Board will not be held liable to creditors, employees will not be held liable to creditors, that's how the justice system works, one person's wrong doing will not screw over an entire group of people, which is part of what allows America to have a good business environment.
I sincerely hope that no one who is reading this comes away with the impression that you have a reliable understanding of the law. If they do, and act on it, they're going to need as many attorneys as Leonard and Ballmer. You've invented, from whole cloth, some version of corporate sponsorship that permits the officers and board members to breach their fiduciary duties to investors without consequence.
Also, the company didn't actually pay $300M to the Clippers. They agreed to pay the Clippers over a very long time.
I am with jbk1234 on this. You don't understand the law. Every Board member is a fiduciary.
