New blood indeed...here is another view at Creekside vs Phillips
https://www.mlflitigation.com/media/shareholders-agreement-helps-founder-obtain-oppression-remedy/ The oppression remedy protects individuals with an interest in a corporation from corporate actions that are harmful by protecting their reasonable expectations.
If a claimant can show unfair conduct by a corporation resulting in prejudice to their interests, the oppression remedy enables a court to intervene.
...
Justice Gilmore found that
Creekside sought to suspend Phillips from all his positions including his role as Director. That alone would have met the test for oppression, which was bolstered by allowing another employee to hold himself out as President and hiring a General Counsel without Phillips’s consent.
...
The Court determined that
Creekside used its leverage as the sole funding source behind AP1
to attempt to gain concessions from Phillips, such as selling his shares to Creekside at cost and resigning as President, CEO, and Director under the Memorandum of Understanding. These actions were contrary to the USA and
demonstrated Creekside’s objective of ousting Phillips without regard to the terms of the agreements the parties had signed. Justice Gilmore also inferred that
the timing of these actions was connected to AP1 being close to earning large profits and Phillips being an obstacle to Creekside’s future plans for AP1.
.....