RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Not a Win for Edward, it's a Win for Shareholders!!!!You are a moron and still can not understand when someone has 97% of the voting shares the law will work in their favor. The highest BC count has made that clear and the Rogers family is not appealing. Case Closed !!
shareholders1 wrote: RD78/ Jerk: I did not opine on which side would prevail. I did not have the Articles, Bylaws or Trust. I only stated that your analysis did not involve thought. You still do not get it.
The second key issue was could a BoD be replaced without a shareholder meeting.
Application of the law requires reference to Articles, By-laws and the relevant corporations legislation. As an example, the Bylaws of some corporations limit the number of new directors that can be added by the Board in between annual shareholder meetings, say in the event of a resignations. Some do not have such limitation. So what "the law is", depends.
Your statement: "The law is the law", was not analysis.