I find your tone patronizing and substance lacking. I have never seen a board seat granted in order to allow the board member to protect a partnership. To induce the board member to create a partnership? That makes more sense. But it isn’t what you claimed. You made a specific and unsubstantiated claim that it was to allow him to protect his partnership in the event of executive change.

Not sure why you keep digging in on this position. You strongly implied that the article said something that it absolutely did not. Good day!