(Total Views: 394)
Posted On: 10/30/2020 10:24:30 AM
Post# of 82692
I'm not sure about this, so if anyone knows better.
From what I gather if CSI is held by ACS and CSI is the actual channel partner, that protects ACS from legal actions against CSI. So, if CSI is giving our revenue to the parent company and not SFOR, as it's supposed to, ACS is protected from lawsuits seeking due compensation.
So, then, ACS can be ripping us off with no actual consequences. CSI might have to go out of business, might be sued, or whatever, but ACS will remain unscathed. It seems exactly the kind of sleazy deal that Dietl would favor.
And presents a good opportunity for SFOR management to be collecting money on the sly.
From what I gather if CSI is held by ACS and CSI is the actual channel partner, that protects ACS from legal actions against CSI. So, if CSI is giving our revenue to the parent company and not SFOR, as it's supposed to, ACS is protected from lawsuits seeking due compensation.
So, then, ACS can be ripping us off with no actual consequences. CSI might have to go out of business, might be sued, or whatever, but ACS will remain unscathed. It seems exactly the kind of sleazy deal that Dietl would favor.
And presents a good opportunity for SFOR management to be collecting money on the sly.
(3)
(0)
