Well, I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer. But the fact that some shareholders trusted "Billy" implicitly, and the rest of us obviously gave him the benefit of the doubt, does not absolve him, UnifiedOnline, Inc. or Chanbond of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
Carter and Leane's filings might even suggest that Carter's malfeasance was intentional, which is particularly egregious since more than 60% of the outstanding shares were dumped into the market AFTER Chanbond filed suit against the 13. If the corporation issues an additional 600 million shares, and the CEO purchases a block of shares from that issuance, why wouldn't shareholders have an expectation of fair dealing?
Leane's opposition to the intervention points out the action in California, which contradicts the statement below. Not to mention, we know, and the court now knows, they follow the board, so "lied in wait..." might be a bit of a stretch.
