After spending some time doing some basic researching it really doesn't matter that the shareholders (stakeholders) were notified or had a say, that lays with the fact the company was sold outright, lock, stock and barrel, when that happens there is no requirement or participation requirement of a board of directors, stakeholders or witnesses. That's under existing merger laws, as such Justin can do whatever he wants up to and including a forced merger, he can change the name, he can change how it operates, etc. The only recourse or obligation moving forward to the existing sharesholders or stakeholders is that he has by law offer market value buyout to every stakeholder on the platform that does not want to move forward into the merger with him. Now if Ned hadn't been the major stakeholder in the company he'd needed approval from the board of directors....now let's just assume he may have gone that route, in that case it would have had to have been determined exactly who the board of directors were, were they a separate lot somewhere at corporate headquarters or were they the witnesses. After that determination they'd had to go to all the stakeholders and get them to agree to the sell out by whatever percentage would have been stated in any by laws, if they were none greater than fifty percent then it usually goes by gaining approval of more than fifty percent. So let's look at this as maybe there was a board of directors somewhere in the corporate line of things that we didn't know about who held more than fifty percent of the shares, that could have created the needed over fifty percent whereas notifying the rest wasn't needed. I only mention it because there were many claims of high powered accounts powering down in the last year so it could be in the realm of possibilities. If it were the witnesses then yes the witnesses would have been required to get over fifty percent of the people onboard to sell. But as stated above the overall fact remains, he sold out lock, stock and barrel and in a incident like that there is no recourse other than Justin is now under the legal obligation to offer market value to any stakeholder who doesn't want to move forward with him.

As for this soft fork they need to fully understand the implications of that move. This has been all the way to the supreme court. No company, corporation, board, absolutely no one within a company can freeze another members shares for any reason what so ever. They can't even implement a new rule to avoid a stakeholder from doing something they don't like. Which was the premise upon which the supreme court ruled when a company in a bid to stop a stakeholder from selling to someone they implemented a new rule that restricted how the stock could be sold. The court ruled that if the rule had existed prior in a contract then the stakeholder/shareholder would have been held to it but since it did not exist the rule technically oppressed a minority shareholder and judgement plus losses were awarded. It's called The Oppression of Minority Stakeholder law but the law works in regard to any attempt to obstruct another stakeholders stake.

One other thing that may help people, this is in regards to the US and in Europe but despite the fact that shareholders think they own part of a company it's been ruled that they hold no stake in that regard, at best when a company is sold under any circumstances, meaning whether outright or by the majority voting to do so those who objected to the sale were entitled by right at the most to be offered market value for their stock if they wanted to opt out.

Hopefully everyone gets together and they can work out their differences, if not maybe this will give people a better understand of some basic legalities involved here.