Board Of Directors Election Results: Fill & Download for Free

Absolutely.Here’s some really dense prose for you : 18 U.S. Code § 2339C - Prohibitions against the financing of terrorismBut here’s the part that matters:Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out … any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization do or to abstain from doing any act, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1).So, yeah.You have a guy who has used his personal wealth and position to encourage a mob to storm the Capitol of the United States, kill a police officer, and attempt to kidnap or kill civilian members of government, in order to compel the government to overturn the election result.And your bank is holding that guy’s personal accounts?Do not walk to the exit. Run like hell to the exit.Regardless of the President’s claims that his speech was totally appropriate, and regardless of the fact that nobody has been convicted of anything yet, Signature Bank has to weigh the risk of closing the accounts and facing political and social backlash, with the risk that keeping them open might put them in the crosshairs of American legislation explicitly intended to destroy financial institutions.No surprise they have taken the course of least risk.Original question:Signature Bank, the NYC-based bank, where Trump maintains personal accounts, has sent a letter to Trump notifying him that his accounts will be closed. The bank's board of directors also issued a call for Trump's resignation. Is the bank correct?

East India Company firstly came to india for the sole purpose of trade but as the time goes it's policies changes. Now they want full autonomy over the trade hence they required to control the region and hence they started their carrier as territorial power in India.After the battle of plassy the area under control was big hence they were required to set up an authority to have control over there. Thus a series of acts, beginning from regulating act 1773, were passed to regulate the affairs of the company.Company affairs were controlled by the court of directors consisting 24 member panel. They were elected by the shareholders.To clear the defects of 1773 regulating act, Pits India act was passed in 1784 which divides the company's political and administrative powers. It resulted in dual control or joint government in India by Crown in Great Britain and the British East India Company, with crown having ultimate authority. With this act, East India Company’s political functions were differentiated from its commercial activities for the first time.For the purpose of Joint Government, a Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India called Board of Controlwas created. This board was made of six people viz. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State, and four Privy Councillors nominated by the King. The Secretary of the State was entitled as the President of the Board of Control. This Board of control was empowered to control all matters of civil or military government or revenues. The board was given full access to the company’s records. It had the powers to send Governors to India and full authority to alter them.i.e. political powers were with board of control and ultimately with british government while commercial powers were with council of directors i.e. with company itself.

Yes, theoretically. But not really.Foremost, you don’t state the kind of company. Or if you really meant company or corporation. So, I have to speak in very broad generalities. I will assume you mean corporation. I will speak of two general cases. Which itself is rather simplifying as there are so many possible exceptions and caveats as to the hows and whys.The General CaseThe CEO generally answers directly to a company’s Board of Directors. To be clear: not to any particular director. The CEO answers to the Board as a whole. A non-involved board member—on his own initiative—has no right to show up to the office and tell anyone to do do anything. (There are exceptions; we’re skipping them.)If you buy 51% of a company’s stock, you are a shareholder. You have no right to manage the company.Instead, you may have a right to elect individuals to seats on the company’s Board of Directors. (However, it’s also possible that 51% of the company’s shares… don’t come with the right to appoint any board seats. That’s possible. But, let’s say they do.)Then, if it is allowed and you follow the correct procedures, you can call a meeting and elect a majority of people of your choosing to the board of directors. (In some states, you could give yourself all the board seats. In some states (e.g. Delaware), that’s not allowed; one person per seat. In yet other states, the decision-making authority of each seat can be weighted differently if procedures are followed.)Now, each one of these individuals has the very some fiduciary obligations to the shareholders. They won’t necessarily do whatever you say. HOWEVER, let’s just say your appointed board members who will rubberstamp your decisions. Great.Now, let’s say you show up to the office and try to order the CEO around directly. In short, you have made the situation hostile by trying to usurp the CEO's lawful authority.The CEO is going to remind you that while you may have Board control, the CEO has day-to-day management control. And the CEO is also responsible for safeguarding the property of the other 49% of the shareholders. Absent proper board action using the proper procedures, the CEO is going to carry on as normal.He’s also going to start looking for a new job (which he was probably already doing). And he’s looking over his contract for his authority, procedures, exit compensation, etc.You, as the controlling director, can follow the procedures to give whatever general orders and directions you want to the CEO. This, however, takes time.Likewise, you begin the process of replacing him. But, actually, you started to do that before you ever bought 51% of company. Because you knew it was going to be inevitable.THE PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATIONCorporations which are traded on a public stock exchange are subject to certain disclosure requirements as mandated by the Securities Exchange Commission.If your goal was to control the corporation, when you reached 5% ownership, you are obligated to file a disclosure with the SEC within 10 days. Without getting into the details, each time you buy 5% more, you need to amend your disclosure. You will also need to make a separate, production annual disclosure.After your first disclosure is made, it’s virtually impossible to get to 51% in secrecy. Failure to disclose is subject to civil penalties. In the manner you have contemplated, it would be a Tier 3 penalty (conditioning the market to result in substantial loss to others), the penalty would range from about $160,000 per person, to $775,000 for a company. However, this is per violation. And you will probably have violated the regulations a dozen times. The SEC will likely settle for you for less, but now the other 49% of your shareholders are also suing you personally for the big dumb mistake you just made.So, to answer the question: it is theoretically possible. But the moment it becomes public what you did, you’re going to be in for a big world of hurt.