"Is there a cause of action for a defacto director suit? What elements must be met to prove this? If there ever was one this seems to be the example of a case where it would fit like a glove. Controls our only income, controls our information except the mandatory minimum required by the SEC. Holds the floor at every SHAM and tells our BOD whether to pee or hold it in. Since I have been in this stock even after we found out he was cheating us the BOD continues to defer to him."
Throw in the "Constructive Insider" status for Leckrone and almost all his cronies... May as well add some more fuel to the fire at the same time and is equally applicable. It seems like it's a counterpoint to "de factor Director" but includes many more people.
Constructive Insider
A person who is not considered an insider of a publicly-traded company but may still have access to nonpublic information that is expected to remain nonpublic. For example, a lawyer working for a firm retained by a publicly-traded company may be a constructive insider. Constructive insiders are expected to abide by the same rules as actual corporate insiders; that is, they may not reveal or profit from nonpublic information. The term was first used in the U.S. Supreme Court case Dirks vs. SEC.
