> I believe the by-law regarding running a Tiger related business
> vis-a-vis holding an office in CAT goes back to a very unfortunate
> experience with a gentleman by the name of Barry Greenberg (sp?) who
> leveraged his position as president of CAT to promote his Tiger
> restoration business. This conflict of interest was aggravated by the
> almost universal dissatisfaction of his customers, which in turn
> reflected badly on CAT.
That is exactly what you are supposed to believe, Bob. That's the pile
they fed us when they adopted the "conflict of interest" clause. In
reality, it was not needed then, as it is not needed now.
ARTICLE III -- DIRECORS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
Director may resign, or may be removed with or without cause, by a vote
of the Board of Directors at any time . . .
ARTICLE IV -- OFFICERS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
Officer may resign, or may be removed with or without cause by a vote of
the Board of Directors at any time . . .
The C.A.T Board of Directors could have removed Barry Greenberg "with or
without cause" and "at any time." That's the way it was then, and
that's the way it is now. The conflict of interest clause was
completely unnecessary, and it was implemented for reasons that were
unrelated to Mr. Greenberg, his restoration business, and his
association with C.A.T., which had ended long before the
conflict-of-interest-clause scam.
Ramon
|