RE: Fiduciary duties9 Feb 2019 14:26
Terms allowing Hope to be on the board is one thing, including vetoing other options, but it still places fiduciary duties upon Hope. The breach of fiduciary duties was less clear cut in the trail of emails until we arrived at the point of an increasing tight situation for FRR, ZM's loan and Hope's alternative. The breach of fiduciary duties becomes far more concrete at that point.
When going through the recent round of court papers, I was gettingprogressively worried as wasn't seeing anything clear cut and strong until we got to that point in the trail of emails and we're presented with that evidence.
Hope turning down ZM''s substantial material offer to replace it with his own predatory one, the right he was trying secure to potential take control of assets and to selling them, was very clear and deeply problematic. I suspect that ZM's offer was perhaps the bait.
So, basically, the case around breach of fiduciary duties wasn't during enough until we got to that point, where it seems Hope was reeled in. At the minimum, on this, headed towards OoCS.
Now, the additional bit about '...unlawful interference'...if they have evidence of that, then who knows what'll happen...