sabu wrote:
North, Jiggetts and any named defendant in this case are in some real shit.
First off, the suit will seek class action status for all plaintiffs (should not be a problem)
next North and Bebe are in some shit because in their role as officers they have a fiduciary duty,
Directors of a company owe such a duty to their shareholders. Crichton v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 358 Ill.App.3d 1137 (5th Dist. 2005); and Illinois Non-Profit Risk Management Ass'n v. Human Service Center of Southern Metro-East, 378 Ill.App.3d 713 (4th Dist. 2008)
Now what can happen is that the class of plaintiffs can joinder the parties (placing the class action plaintiffs against the norths, david hernandez and all other defendants). go to trial, win a judgement for damages (including punitives). Then they can go after the norths for the entire sum, leaving the norths to go after hernandez.
bottom line, the norths are in some deep caca, jiggets and the othes may lose any money that they made in the course of their contracts as the ill gotten gains, but i dont see them as defendants due to the fact that they do not have a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs (as mere talent on the webio thing).
Not to mention there is a possibility of filing a civil RICO action against the entire entity. But they arent my clients.
later
sabu
Hey Sabu, not my area of expertise (I do work comp), but would that law apply to North since he is only an officer in Webio, not the actual parent company. It doesn't appear as if Webio had any investors and only brought in about $3000. Also, if it does apply, wouldn't he be exempt from this suit since the plaintiff invested all his money prior to North becoming a partner?
If anything, wouldn't the list of people North could possibly be held liable to be limited to people who lost money/career opportunities as a result of webio?
_________________
LTG wrote:
Trae Young will be a bust. Book It!