36

AND WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT MY DILUTION CLAIM IS DERIVATIVE? DESPITE HOW I AM SUSPICIOUS OF DERIVATIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SHAREHOLDER OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE IN GENERAL AS BEING THE RESULT OF CORRUPTION, I , NEVERTHELESS, DO THINK THAT ITS APPLICATION HERE DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL PRACTICE ENOUGH FOR MY CASE TO BE GRANTED. THE USUAL PRACTICE FOR SUCH ARGUMENT IS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A COMPANY WITH A FIXED NUMBER OF AUTHORISED SHARES SELLS SHARES THAT WORTH $200 EACH AT A PRICE OF $100 AND A SHAREHOLDER COMES COMPLAINING DILUTION. IN THAT CASE A COURT MAY ARGUE THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ACTUALLY ARGUING FOR SOMETHING THAT BELONG TO THE COMPANY FIRST NOT HIM. BUT FOR MY CASE IT WAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATION. 

LETS START FROM THE BEGINNING. IF YOUR OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE GOES FROM 2 PERCENT TO 1 PERCENT YOU CLEARLY SUFFERED A HARM. THE QUESTION THAT MAY REMAIN ARGUABLE TO COURTS IS WHETHER THAT HARM REACHED YOU DIRECTLY OR DERIVATIVELY THROUGH THE COMPANY. THE COURTS BELOW ARGUED THAT MY DILUTION CLAIM IS DERIVATIVE. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS NOT ONLY THAT THE DIRECT PATH TO  HARM SEEMS STRONGER BUT, IN ADDITION, YOU CANT FIND A DERIVATIVE PATH BECAUSE YOU CANT FIND OR PROVE A HARM TO THE COMPANY TO BEGIN WITH.  BECAUSE OF THAT RULING BY THE COURTS BELOW I CAN NOW ONLY BRING THE DILUTION CLAIM AGAINST THE MAIN DEFENDANT DERIVATIVELY.  SUPPOSE THAT I WANT TO FOLLOW THAT, HOW WOULD I BE ABLE TO PROCEED AGAINST THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT?

HOW CAN YOU PROVE A HARM HAPPENED TO THE COMPANY FROM THE SELLING OF SHARES AS LONG AS THEIR IS A WILLINGNESS AND CAPABILITY TO CONTINUE THE SUPPLY OF AUTHORIZED SHARES AS NEEDED WHICH IS ,IN FACT, WHAT YOUR COMPLAINT ITSELF SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTING?  HOW WOULD IT HARM THE COMPANY IF IT WAS HELD THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, A BILLION INSTEAD OF A MILLION SHARES?

YET, ALL THAT APPARENTLY WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THIS COURT TO GRANT THE PETITION.