User blog comment:BastionMonk/How bad was Peter Ludlow?/@comment-1791057-20130523191135/@comment-6493791-20130524025154

@Jhayk' Sully, Yes, it was his company. Yet, you probably well know, that the CEO of a Corporation must have at least 51% of the companies stock to properly outvote the Board of Directors, and I'm sorry to say, he's not at liberty to simply destroy the company for a non-profitable purpose. The Board won't let that happen, and they didn't. Hammond apparently didn't own the 51% to outvote the entire Board, as they were able to file and injunction against him. As for the Board "not thinking about their wallets and going along with it", that makes no sense at all. If they did, they would all end up in the end unemployeed. It's that simple; a company with already lawsuits and a bleeding throat will not survive without any return-capital. Then, there's no company left. It's a wonderful thought that money grows on trees and can be spent on a private Nature Preserve, but it's not for a big-business genetic engineering corporation that is already in major debt. That's what sold the Board of Directors. It wasn't them being greedy thinking with their wallets, it was them making the best decision from a business standpoint. Plan and simple, but I'm sure you still won't agree