I have no way of knowing what the will said. 70% equity ownership is not by definition the same thing as voting control. It usually is of course, but there could be separate classes of stock that provide supervoting rights to minority equity holders, and there could certainly have been a provision of the will or some other shareholders agreement that put day to day control of the business in steve's hands and prevented georgia from making a change absent some form of gross negligence or willful misconduct. These types of arrangements are rare, but they do exist.

The context of my question was whether steve and his brothers sold out to georgia as part of a negotiated deal when the change in day to day control occured.

The real question is what did carroll want. If he wanted georgia to own the team and steve to run it, there were ways he could have provided for that legally. If he wanted that to be the case but didnt effectuate his intentions in a legal manner, ie via will or some of shareholders agreement or trust document, than its more of an ethical matter, ie did georgia disregard carrolls wishes, even if she had no legal obligation to fullfill them.

ramming speed to all

sign the big man

long live marshall

general counsel