This message has been deleted.

Thank you for proving my point, dick.
Your point being you were Triggered? Yea I agree with that point.

Thank you for proving my point, dick.

Because supporting your thesis is tough, but throwing adjectives is easy.

Oh crap, mister penis-avatar (obviously that is OP) is back with his crappy, unsupported opinions.
Hey, Mr Penis, is that photo YOUR dick or someone else's? It's not very good looking.
Triggered^

Oh crap, mister penis-avatar (obviously that is OP) is back with his crappy, unsupported opinions.
Hey, Mr Penis, is that photo YOUR dick or someone else's? It's not very good looking.

Because supporting your thesis is tough, but throwing adjectives is easy.

Aren't there certain laws in place for when a CEO / owner messes up big time.
I think one of the board members explains this to her.
She had to up her game or be removed.
It's something like having a will revised / annulled, because the writer was not mentally stable.

Felicity owns Ray's shares in Palmer Tech, and still does. They've not established if that's a majority share or minor, as we never found out. However she doesn't have a say in the running of the company because it's probably set up that way, to prevent creeping takeovers. Standard in most modern tech companies.

The board of directors is not the same as the total mass of stockholders. The way the company was apparently set up gave the decision on whom to hire as CEO to the board and not to the stockholders. I would expect most companies are set up this way, else they'd have to wait up to a year to fire a poorly performing executive officer.
So then shes not the owner as she claims. Owning something requires Stocks and I'd find it highly questionable to be escorted and kicked from own building.
I think they can remove her as CEO and thats it. But I'd even find that debatable. As CEO's usually have to step down themselves.

The board of directors is not the same as the total mass of stockholders. The way the company was apparently set up gave the decision on whom to hire as CEO to the board and not to the stockholders. I would expect most companies are set up this way, else they'd have to wait up to a year to fire a poorly performing executive officer.

Because supporting your thesis is tough, but throwing adjectives is easy.

Doesn't make sense.

How can they fire her if she has the majority stock? She out votes them.

She's the CEO and the Owner. Now she's the Owner, not the CEO.
She didn't do her job for 6 months then showed up to try and did her job poorly.
It's a wonder they didn't oust her sooner. If the company was a pig, she slit it's throat.
Darth Maul: "He Lives"