And here I was debating with myself prior to posting that when you said he was supposed to donate what he was sitting on, you might have meant himself, not the company...and all the talk that he had taken the money and run (publicly traded securities are not identical to cash). I never guessed we had different definitions of “sitting on”.
But that’s irrelevant to the bottom line. I’m curious why you think he should donate his assets or the radio networks’.
Do you really believe that he is practically - as opposed to legally - separate from the company?
I’m curious why you think he should donate his assets or the radio networks’.
Because he collected that money on false pretenses and, morally, he should give that largesse to non-fraudulent entities.