re: #459 BryanS

Yes. That’s the purpose of a corporation—to separate liability from owners.

He was still involved and responsible though. Do you really not get that in retaining sole ownership, thus ultimate hiring and firing authority he was tacitly approving of everything his managers did? By granting himself those corporate titles and paying himself six figures in earned income salary he was setting up a relationship where the business he owned paid him ostensibly for his oversight and the functions he performed as CEO, Chairman, President and Managing Partner. Even if the argument is that he did nothing, then he still got paid to do nothing and his choice to remain inactive equates directly to support for what was going on.

Face it, he profited by salary instead of strict appreciation, that’s involvement. He did nothing to remove himself from the mechanisms of control, that’s responsibility. He signed off on key deals, that’s approval. He’s playing semantic games with the truth, that’s not leadership.