HugeBob
Citizen
Former President
Supporter
President
Presidential Commendation
hugebob23456
donator3
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
- Messages
- 656
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION
The Commonwealth
Prosecution
v.
Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
Officers of publicly traded companies are bound by Fiduciary Duty (Relevant Law), which compels them to act in the best interest of the company and not intentionally engage in activity that undermines their duty or the integrity of their company. This act was made to protect the investors of Redmont from bad actors intentionally tanking stocks, as a means to prevent scams that were once commonplace in Redmont.
When the Defendant was asked to share the performance of their company with The Exchange to update their shareholders, the Defendant refused stating "I'd rather just delist with my lack of interest in stocks in general". Delisting is regulated by law to prevent scams, to protect people from having hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen from them. When a company delists, it is required by law to relist on the same or another securities exchange within 30 days of delisting, or alternatively the company could "go private" with the consent of 2/3s of the shareholders, but this would require the company to buy back all outstanding stock. In the event that a company attempts to delist but refuses to follow the prescribed process, it is then the responsibility of the DEC Secretary to order it be relisted on the exchange which it was previously listed.
When employees of The Exchange made clear to the Defendant what the law requires of him, he responded "That's fine, I'll just break the law. Because you can't force me to update soemthing[sic] I don't have time for". The Defendant is using his position as the DEC Secretary to refuse to enforce the law on his own company, defrauding his investors of the money they originally invested and the money they have earned through those investments.
It is clear that a conflict of interest has developed that the Defendant has chosen to exploit to conceal the performance of his company from his investors. The use of public office to defraud public investors to the tune of at least $276,708.32 is clearly unlawful and an open act of corruption. A total of 715 shares of Walgreens stock has been sold to the public (35.75% of all the company's stock), how many different people have been harmed in this scheme? How many investors, both large and small, have lost significant portions, if not all of the value of their investments? This is not a victimless crime. This is one of the largest scams to have ever happened on DC.
I. PARTIES
1. Trentrick_Lamar
2. Walgreens
3. The Exchange
4. Shareholders of Walgreens
5. The Department of Education and Commerce
II. FACTS
1. Defendant violated their Fiduciary Duty by refusing to give updates to shareholders
2. Defendant committed corruption by allowing their own company to evade enforcement of laws designed to prevent scams
3. When confronted, Defendant confessed their intent to break the law
4. When confronted further, Defendant threatened he would rather leave the server than follow the law
III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Corruption
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption: $25,000 in fines and removal from public office for a period of 2 months.
2. For Breach of Fiduciary Duty we are requesting a fine made payable to the State of $20,000 and there is a clause requiring that the Defendant "pay full restitution to shareholders of the approximate loss of potential value that their actions caused to shareholders". There are 3 possible metrics the Courts could cite for fines and they are as follows:
35.75% of the company's stock is owned by public shareholders, the current value of the company is $774,009.29, the highest past value of the company is $922,849.86, and our 6 month future projection of the company's value is $1,384,274.80.
- Based on the current value of the stock: Fines of $276,708.32, or $387 per share
- Based on the maximum previous value of the stock: Fines of $329,918.83, or $461.42 per share
- Based on a 6 month future projection of the stock's value: Fines of $494,878.24, or $692.14 per share
The reason we have presented multiple options for the Court is because of the word "potential" for damages entitled to the shareholders of the company. The future projection is based on the past performance of the company. The Courts are of course free to choose a different value however we strongly recommend it be no less than the current value of the stock and no more than a 6 month future projection of the stock's performance.
Act of Congress - Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 3rd day of September 2022
CRIMINAL ACTION
The Commonwealth
Prosecution
v.
Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
Officers of publicly traded companies are bound by Fiduciary Duty (Relevant Law), which compels them to act in the best interest of the company and not intentionally engage in activity that undermines their duty or the integrity of their company. This act was made to protect the investors of Redmont from bad actors intentionally tanking stocks, as a means to prevent scams that were once commonplace in Redmont.
When the Defendant was asked to share the performance of their company with The Exchange to update their shareholders, the Defendant refused stating "I'd rather just delist with my lack of interest in stocks in general". Delisting is regulated by law to prevent scams, to protect people from having hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen from them. When a company delists, it is required by law to relist on the same or another securities exchange within 30 days of delisting, or alternatively the company could "go private" with the consent of 2/3s of the shareholders, but this would require the company to buy back all outstanding stock. In the event that a company attempts to delist but refuses to follow the prescribed process, it is then the responsibility of the DEC Secretary to order it be relisted on the exchange which it was previously listed.
When employees of The Exchange made clear to the Defendant what the law requires of him, he responded "That's fine, I'll just break the law. Because you can't force me to update soemthing[sic] I don't have time for". The Defendant is using his position as the DEC Secretary to refuse to enforce the law on his own company, defrauding his investors of the money they originally invested and the money they have earned through those investments.
It is clear that a conflict of interest has developed that the Defendant has chosen to exploit to conceal the performance of his company from his investors. The use of public office to defraud public investors to the tune of at least $276,708.32 is clearly unlawful and an open act of corruption. A total of 715 shares of Walgreens stock has been sold to the public (35.75% of all the company's stock), how many different people have been harmed in this scheme? How many investors, both large and small, have lost significant portions, if not all of the value of their investments? This is not a victimless crime. This is one of the largest scams to have ever happened on DC.
I. PARTIES
1. Trentrick_Lamar
2. Walgreens
3. The Exchange
4. Shareholders of Walgreens
5. The Department of Education and Commerce
II. FACTS
1. Defendant violated their Fiduciary Duty by refusing to give updates to shareholders
2. Defendant committed corruption by allowing their own company to evade enforcement of laws designed to prevent scams
3. When confronted, Defendant confessed their intent to break the law
4. When confronted further, Defendant threatened he would rather leave the server than follow the law
III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Corruption
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption: $25,000 in fines and removal from public office for a period of 2 months.
2. For Breach of Fiduciary Duty we are requesting a fine made payable to the State of $20,000 and there is a clause requiring that the Defendant "pay full restitution to shareholders of the approximate loss of potential value that their actions caused to shareholders". There are 3 possible metrics the Courts could cite for fines and they are as follows:
35.75% of the company's stock is owned by public shareholders, the current value of the company is $774,009.29, the highest past value of the company is $922,849.86, and our 6 month future projection of the company's value is $1,384,274.80.
- Based on the current value of the stock: Fines of $276,708.32, or $387 per share
- Based on the maximum previous value of the stock: Fines of $329,918.83, or $461.42 per share
- Based on a 6 month future projection of the stock's value: Fines of $494,878.24, or $692.14 per share
The reason we have presented multiple options for the Court is because of the word "potential" for damages entitled to the shareholders of the company. The future projection is based on the past performance of the company. The Courts are of course free to choose a different value however we strongly recommend it be no less than the current value of the stock and no more than a 6 month future projection of the stock's performance.
Act of Congress - Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 3rd day of September 2022