Replies to post #109411 on Protagenic Therapeutics Inc. (PTIX)

[budbear]

It is always telling to see the vitriol spewed. My views first are not incorrect as I will show but if they were I would gladly accept correction when done in a dignified manner. Your ad hominem attack is regretful.

Now to my point I DID SAY in previous posts that under certain circumstances the corporate veil can be pierced. It is not as easy in Court as some here think that it is because it seems they do not want to believe it is.


“business judgment rule,”
A director’s actions, even if they prove incorrect, have strong protection from liability if the director acts in good faith, uses common sense and acts in a manner which the director reasonably believes is in the best interest of the shareholders.

IT IS HARD TO PROVE INTENT. Piercing the corporate veil like I said is possible but it is difficult to prove intent. You need to first vet & prove their intent, good luck, it is possible but I stand on my belief it will not be done. I SAID FIRST FRAUD HAS TO BE PROVED OR MALFEASANCE NOT STUPIDITY OR THE LIKE. No matter they would argue it was a mistake. So I stand on my words I covered all my bases.

The way in which you respond shows your anger. Anger prevents true dialog which is what is productive and makes a contribution.

I am not impressed.

[budbear]

I already covered that. I said the corporate veil can be pierced in certain circumstances in a lot of my posts including malfeasance & fraud. BUT

“business judgment rule,”
"a director’s actions, even if they prove incorrect, have strong protection from liability if the director acts in good faith, uses
common sense and acts in a manner which the director reasonably believes is in the best interest of the shareholders. In addition to the business judgment rule, corporations frequently protect directors."

If they were smart they would have covered themselves if not they are stupid and stupidity is not actionable if you understand the point.

It is hard to prove intent, stupidity or mistakes can cover almost all circumstances whether real or used as an excuse.

I am not wrong your anger is telling. Sometimes people are vested they cannot bear to hear contrary views yet I stand on my opinion these guys will not be liable under the circumstances.

In any case it is a long arduous journey one has to pick ones battles it is up to each to see where they invest their focus.

Ad hominem attacks do not replace genuine discourse.