Because the burden is on Sharp to compel the court that these idiots should be removed & a court appointed custodian is proper as remedy for the on-going "mishandling" & blatant abandonment of their fiduciary duties to shareholders.
Based on the evidence presented by Sharp's side, the judge is basically deciding "ok even a very stupid person can see these RETC guys are rats & potentially thieves at many levels" BUT is removing them supported by NV statute, AND/OR if there is no clear case law (precedence) on corporate abandonment--and there isn't--should the case be decided on what is equitable in this case?
In other words, if we left the shareholders & companies with RETC management despite their past & ongoing negligence of duties, have we fairly & justly answered the complaint of the petition who is a shareholder or are we putting them in more irreparable harm?
Then there is the legal question: do these RETC idiots get to keep the company since they have reinstated the corporation during the custodian hearing?
It is not clear cut & for this reason, the judge wants to hear arguments.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
