Eco Building Products Inc. (fka ECOB)

[Long-vestor]

"ConMan lying" old news, lol. But responsible for the years of unpaid taxes? Corporate shield. Unless he's also got unpaid personal taxes it's in the hands of SEC and shareholders...

When the ConMan filed in Colorado in Spet 2013 to increase the authorized days ahead of the actual meeting and vote, it was a libelous action. Although the actual vote claimed to approve it, the responsibility was ignored yet, there's a bit of substance illustrating his reckless governance.

Boiler room tactics Investor relations, 'Batson's boiler room'.

Acquiring a coffee company continues to go without approval..

Otherwise it's likely the SEC grabbed his tail, it would not take much for them to find a reckless pattern.

Selling his personal assets to the company at his pleasure with a non competitive price, after he gets toxic cash.

And what about those controlling shares he gave himself winter 2014 so he could authorize another 8 billion shares to dump; Who voted it in? none other than himself. Preplanned before sept meeting yet, no common voter/shareholder was told.

2014, Valentine's day massacre: 6 weeks of pump, wait for news Convert Toxic on the same day and DUMP!!

There are citations to list from the start of Florida promotions who dumped, the following year and years everywhere. Not hard to discover a reckless pattern through beginning to end.

In the United States, corporate veil piercing is the most litigated issue in corporate law.[24] Although courts are reluctant to hold an active shareholder liable for actions that are legally the responsibility of the corporation, even if the corporation has a single shareholder, they will often do so if the corporation was markedly noncompliant, or if holding only the corporation liable would be singularly unfair to the plaintiff. In most jurisdictions, no bright-line rule exists and the ruling is based on common law precedents. In the United States, different theories, most important "alter ego" or "instrumentality rule", attempted to create a piercing standard. Mostly, they rest upon three basic prongs—namely "unity of interest and ownership", "wrongful conduct" and "proximate cause". However, the theories failed to articulate a real-world approach which courts could directly apply to their cases. Thus, courts struggle with the proof of each prong and rather analyze all given factors. This is known as "totality of circumstances".[25]

There is also the matter of what jurisdiction the corporation is incorporated in if the corporation is authorized to do business in more than one state. All corporations have one specific state (their "home" state) to which they are incorporated as a "domestic" corporation, and if they operate in other states, they would apply for authority to do business in those other states as a "foreign" corporation. In determining whether or not the corporate veil may be pierced, the courts are required to use the laws of the corporation's home state. This issue can be significant; for example, the rules for allowing a corporate veil to be pierced are much more liberal in California than they are in Nevada. Thus, the owner(s) of a corporation operating in California would be subject to different potential for the corporation's veil to be pierced if the corporation was to be sued, depending on whether the corporation was a California domestic corporation or was a Nevada foreign corporation operating in California.

Generally, the plaintiff has to prove that the incorporation was merely a formality and that the corporation neglected corporate formalities and protocols, such as voting to approve major corporate actions in the context of a duly authorized corporate meeting. This is quite often the case when a corporation facing legal liability transfers its assets and business to another corporation with the same management and shareholders. It also happens with single person corporations that are managed in a haphazard manner. As such, the veil can be pierced in both civil cases and where regulatory proceedings are taken against a shell corporation.