RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Bennet litigationNot sure I understand the connection between researching Pacer and not knowing a company's liability in the event of criminal action against an officer. I apparently missed the lecture on recognizing the "obvious" when I was at MIT but then logic was not part of your curriculum.
To me the options do not seem logical:
1. If Bennett is acquitted, DIV's insurance reimburses DIV for his legal expenses. So, it is in all our interests to see Bennett acquitted, even if he is actually guilty.
2. If Bennett is convicted, the stockholders pay the legal fees for a crook.
3. If Bennett is convicted and fined, he pays the fine but we pay his legal fees.
To me, it is "obvious" this doesn't make sense.