Replies to post #6272 on OMDA Oil and Gas, Inc. (OOAG)

[jimwalters]

I think the litmus test is generally were the acts committed, whether successful or not, aimed at building the business and its shareholders or one's personal pocketbook. If the latter then there is the issue of fraud the enters the picture. Selling shares for personal gain, then replacing those shares for free is not in the best interest of the company and its shareholders. Remember, there is no statute of limitations on fraud either.

[dhwco]

This whole thread started with kenco's statement:

"I was just adding that there are whole slew of perfectly legal ways for an individual or group, with majority control of a corp., to drain capital and assets out of it at will."

It is not legal to drain assets at will in breach of fiduciary duty. Period. Kenco says it is. So be it. Apparently he agrees with the Barnetts and Lanzas on this. Who am I to stand against such esteemed opinions?

And BTW kenco, it IS NOT necessary that a shareholder bring a derivative suit as you state. No shareholder is barred from a direct action in these matters.

Put your money where your mouth is and sue these guys instead of rationalizing your lack of action with such dribble. You equate "I may lose" with "I will lose" so you don't have to anguish over the decision. I've seen and heard this all before. You scream "he is a crook" while simultaneously saying "it is all legal"