@lillyfinch @DoctorDNS @KimberlyN @GottaLaff

No. I don't think he'll find anything favorable for him in NY. That includes licensing, financing, sellers, vendors. He would either be re-investing in properties...or I suppose he might try to have his business taken over by a proxy who he can retreive it from. But I think the bottom line is, he's been run out of town on a rail, dripping tar and flinging feathers.

@patmadigan @riley @GottaLaff
He does seem to care for the money more than anything else, and even after those three years he's going to be scrutinized so closely that the only folks willing to give him a Benjamin will be payday lenders.

We can of course hope that the resultant stress from having to pay that dosh will disqualify him from the more... humous aspects of his chosen career, though.

@bronakins The things I listed are not circumventions. These are officially the sort of things that a rich person who can't handle his own affairs is supposed to do: hire somebody who can.

Serving as a corporate officer comes with a whole bunch of legal duties. It resembles, to a degree, beign a lawyer, except the legal profession is licence-in, and the corporate representation proession is disqualify-out, in that in modern Western countries, adults are, by default, expected to be able to do the job, but can be disqualified, usually by a court, if they screw up the legal-duties-to-state part too badly.

Pumpkin reincorporating in Florida and staying a corporate officer could be considered circumventive (although there might not be a legal remedy against it). Pumpkin standing down and hiring somebody like Alina Habba to be personally liable for future corporate malfeasance of the kind that corporate officers can be found responsible for, though, is exactly how this works.

In corporate governance, unlike state governance, there's no rule of strict separation of powers between stockholders, the board (if any — some types of corporations do not need a board), and the directors, but the rôles are, nevertheless, considered distinct. In fact, a number of fairly large corporations have had a single person being both a major stockholder, and also serving as both the chairman of the board and the CEO. Under this ruling, Pumpkin will not be able to be any executive officer, or sit on the board, of any New York corporation, but in capitalist law, there's no disqualification from being a stockholder.

The closest to such a concept might be a personal bankruptcy, which could involve stripping property — stock being considered property — from him, leaving him unable to afford any stock until the bankruptcy will be discharged. But I don't expect him to declare a personal bankruptcy in the immediate future. Maybe after his first criminal conviction, and even that I wouldn't really bet on.

Stockholders as a collective have the power to dictate to the board (or the directors, if there's no board) the corporate policy, and replace the board (or the directors, if there's no board), by holding a vote. In a corporation whose majority of stock is held by a single person, these votes would, for obvious reasons, to boil down to just that person's decisions.

Now, Pumpkin has been adjudicated to have done illegal things while he was a corporate officer. The important supposedly protective principle here is, as a stockholder, he will not be able to order such things done with corporate property personally, but executive officers distinct from him would be handling them for him, and he's not supposed to be able to force his board, his directors, or his corporate employees to do illegal things on his behalf; if these other people will be doing illegal things, they will be personally on the hook for them.

The catch here is, Pumpkin is kind of known for being able to find incompetent sycophants.