No lawyer here, either, but common sense often matters. The usual statute of limitations for filing suits runs a few years in most states--so the old board would seem to fall under that time frame.
Who might pay a judgement, if rendered (in a theoretical lawsuit at this point) seems not as important as if a judgement is rendered on what may have been illegal acts. Someone may be held liable.
IMO, it doesn't much matter if the defendant pays, or if the insurance co. pays. Fault can be assigned.
The last few posts were meant to point out the advance pooh-poohing of a potential lawsuit before it is filed and before the allegations can be known.
It seems to me, to be particularly foolish to carelessly brush aside as unfounded, way in advance of the facts, should such a suit be filed. That's exactly what happened in 2005. Wave's insurance co. paid out $1.75M in settling, IMO, a powerful case against Steven and Feeney. The case was characterized by the leaders as nothing more than a nuisance suit. It was far more, IMO.
Shouldn't we withhold judgement on a potential lawsuit against the Wave Board of Directors until a.) it is filed and b.) what is alleged, is known?
Blue
