Does a majority holder such as Billy not have a fiduciary duty to the minority holders? There are two separate questions here. Was what Billy did 'legal'? If not, would be able to get $ out of it. I believe that any action that benefitted him and hurt us was not legal. Further, I do think we would be able to get $ in case of a settlement. I know you disagree on the second part, but how do you see the first?