I have recently formed a company with the prpose in mind of operating a "Naviera" type business.
In the original assignment of titles for coporate officers, I made, as majority stockholder, several assignments as to who would be what.
When the documentation was returned, I noted that the attorney who made up the documentation had placed his name as one of the Vice Presidents instead of the person I stipulated.When I questioned him about this "mistake", he informed me that his secretary had done this and that it couldn't be changed for a period of one year.
I immediately issued a Memo-for-Record under the Corporate Logo assigning the original person to the duties intended and made him a Vice President, relagating the attorney to a non-voting advisor (which, by the way, will never happen) and changing his designation from Vice President. Needless to say, his services will never be used. He has in effect, screwed himself by his actions. If he is so inattentive of detail, I certainly don't want him in my employ for any duties and especially not those involving legal proceedings.
Were my actions legal? If not, why not? Since I am the major stockholder (all others have one share of the 100 issued) and am the owner, do I not have that managerial authority?
Your comments appreciated.
Texas Bill
In the original assignment of titles for coporate officers, I made, as majority stockholder, several assignments as to who would be what.
When the documentation was returned, I noted that the attorney who made up the documentation had placed his name as one of the Vice Presidents instead of the person I stipulated.When I questioned him about this "mistake", he informed me that his secretary had done this and that it couldn't be changed for a period of one year.
I immediately issued a Memo-for-Record under the Corporate Logo assigning the original person to the duties intended and made him a Vice President, relagating the attorney to a non-voting advisor (which, by the way, will never happen) and changing his designation from Vice President. Needless to say, his services will never be used. He has in effect, screwed himself by his actions. If he is so inattentive of detail, I certainly don't want him in my employ for any duties and especially not those involving legal proceedings.
Were my actions legal? If not, why not? Since I am the major stockholder (all others have one share of the 100 issued) and am the owner, do I not have that managerial authority?
Your comments appreciated.
Texas Bill
Last edited: