Re: [s-d] [s-b] hostile takeovers

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think you may be a bit confused J. A member of a contract is not a party
to/of a contract. That is why you didn't become a Voting Sockholder of Black
Corporation when you became a member of its contract. That is also why
Wooble can be a member of his Corps without being a party to their
contracts.

Also, you aren't even a party to Brick Red's contract because you switched
the words Brick and Red. If I'm not mistaken, you have to be specific when
you join a Contract. In fact, I don't know if it is possible to become a
member of a Sock corp, seeing that they don't have names written into their
Articles of Incorporation. Maybe someone should look that up!

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Charles Schaefer
> <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> > > In 2 rdays, {
> > >
> > > I resolve these two Motions, as majority approval is guaranteed.
> > >
> > > As CEO of Red Brick and Baby Blue Sock Corps, I fulfill my obligations
> > > and cause each to {{ Transfer all macks to B Nomic Player J. }}
> > >
> > > I transfer all macks to J's Holding Company.
> > >
> > > }
> >
> >
> > Not valid. You are not a voting sockholder.
>
>
> Well, the first 2 parts fail (unless you become a voting sockholder by
> then,
> somehow, and pass other motions giving you the obligation to transfer the
> mack, in which case the second may succeed).
>
> But nothing prevents the third part... You're still on course to transfer
> all you mack (960 right now) to your holding company when October 4th hits.
>
> BP
>  _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
 -Tyler
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss