The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
ADAMIJ was employed a/o 2004, establishment date of business, in capacity of CIO. SCHNALL is one of "original investors and shareholders", ie. no earlier than 2004. Both own common stock in the company. Here "company" and "corporation" are synonymous; "stock," "security," "equity" are synonymous contract instruments, designating owner interest in the going concern (the "company"). Restaurant.com, Inc. stock is not publicly traded; the company stock is "closely held" or "privately owned". Plaintiffs' brief, defendant's filing with the SEC for Regulation D exemption (2012), SEC Regulation D and IL Sec. of State summary of same under IL securities trading law support this conclusion: "In Illinois, all sales to Illinois residents within the immediately preceding 12-month period must have been made to not more than 35 persons or have involved an aggregate sales price of not more than $1,000,000." Thus are established maximum number of interested parties and total face value of shares created and distributed 2004, 2012, and any time thereafter.
WHEREAS plaintiffs' brief does NOT allege CHESSICK sold stock to any one who are not accredited investors; plaintiffs' brief neither confirms nor denies distribution of profit to shareholders at any time, 2004 - 2012; plaintiffs' brief does not refer to company by-laws stipulating fiduciary duties and other obligations of company officers; plaintiffs' brief does not identify a board of directors, its members by name, or any individual, designated hiring authority responsible for hiring CHESSICK; plaintiffs' brief does not refer to any employment contract, all terms and conditions inclusive, accepted by therefore contravened by CHESSICK (2012); and plaintiffs' brief does not allege fraud by violation of Regulation D or other means by CHESSICK, one may wonder that none considered investing a portion of their salaries and income in preferred shares as had CHESSICK.
Why did "shareholders", plaintiffs, assume the alias of the company, "nominal defendant"?
In your deliberations (facts unknown notwithstanding) consider US ferangi rules of incorporation noted above --cognates, dualism, diversification.
Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 9 84 comments
by ATinNM - Jul 12 8 comments
by Oui - Jul 14 1 comment
by ARGeezer - Jun 29 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 5 39 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 2 33 comments
by Oui - Jul 16 17 comments
by Oui - Jul 6 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 18
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 1713 comments
by Oui - Jul 1617 comments
by Oui - Jul 151 comment
by Oui - Jul 141 comment
by ATinNM - Jul 128 comments
by joelado - Jul 11
by Oui - Jul 111 comment
by Oui - Jul 118 comments
by Oui - Jul 101 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 984 comments
by Oui - Jul 94 comments
by Oui - Jul 93 comments
by Oui - Jul 8
by Oui - Jul 64 comments
by Oui - Jul 63 comments
by Oui - Jul 56 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 539 comments