Martha Stewart. Could this ever happen to Donald Trump?

To clarify, I was wondering about how she could be brought down to such a low level in the company when she was the one that started it all and owns over 60% (according to the media). Is it possible to be able to maintain the control? Like if the founder and CEO go down, then so does the business; instead of others being able to take over and possibly prosper? Do you believe that she could have made any better business decisions?

Maybe, look also here
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28990&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Thank you Thok. I have read through it all and found:

I suspect that Cousin Martha's real troubles lie ahead. There is still the very real possibility of a civil lawsuit on the part of her stockholders. She had a contract which made her liable for any damage any of her personal actions did to the company and stock. Not an unusual contract for a corporate 'face/name', but unusual in that she actually has damaged her own corporate name.

We were talking about this at work today. The cost of subscriptions to her magazine have dropped significantly (they never used to discount them), her website is offering all kinds of deals and freebies (I got an email announcing some of them yesterday. I'm on 'her' list as I use her site to keep track of birthdays), Mark Burnett apparently is angling to take over her show ... Martha Stewart stockholders face an interesting dilemma. Sue her - and perhaps lose it all, or let it go, and hope the company manages to recover.




So this type of contract occurs often? Does it really affect the primary stockholder to as much of the extent as Martha was affected? Still wondering if she could have made any wiser decisions (aside from the insider trading). Possibly buying out her stocks and relying less on stockholders with her own considerable wealth? Could that have resulted in less damages? Also being able to continue to control her own company?