(Total Views: 353)
Posted On: 06/13/2023 2:19:13 PM
Post# of 148904
Re: craigakess #135000
You are simply reaffirming that I am correct in my points.
NSF had control over Amarex. They appointed one of their high-level employees to run Amarex, while he remained employed at NSF. They appointed two of their people to the Amarex board of directors, which oversees Amarex. The CEO of NSF PERSONALLY involved himself when CYDY's CEO complained, and assured that he himself would investigate the complaints.
Although you claim that ALL (your caps) of the things you list must be present for the corporate veil to be pierced, that is not correct. One entity having control over the other is sufficient grounds. It is certainly not necessary for Amarex to have failed to pay bills or to have engaged in other financial mismanagement for the corporate veil to be pierced (your paragraphs 4 and 5)
NSF had control over Amarex. They appointed one of their high-level employees to run Amarex, while he remained employed at NSF. They appointed two of their people to the Amarex board of directors, which oversees Amarex. The CEO of NSF PERSONALLY involved himself when CYDY's CEO complained, and assured that he himself would investigate the complaints.
Although you claim that ALL (your caps) of the things you list must be present for the corporate veil to be pierced, that is not correct. One entity having control over the other is sufficient grounds. It is certainly not necessary for Amarex to have failed to pay bills or to have engaged in other financial mismanagement for the corporate veil to be pierced (your paragraphs 4 and 5)
(2)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
