The Chomiak family opened a seasonal summer resort on the shores of Lake George in 1957. To run the resort, the Chomiaks formed a closely held corporation called Twin Bay Village, Inc. One hundred shares were issued which were split between Stephan and Eleonora Chomiak and their two sons, Vladimir and Leon. Decades later in 2004, the shares passed hands and Vladimir’s son and daughter were the beneficial owners of a total of 48 shares in Twin Bay Village. Leo and his two daughters owned the remaining 52 shares. Ownership of shares were not the only thing that changed in Twin Bay Village. By this point, Vladimir no longer helped manage the corporation, and only Leo and his two daughters were still involved. In 2009, the majority shareholders, Leo and his two daughters attempted to force the minority shareholders to sell their shares back to the corporation. Met with refusal, the majority shareholders filed a suit to force dissolution of the corporation. The minority shareholders subsequently countersued, alleging the majority shareholders had breached their fiduciary duty to them by engaging in oppressive behavior and looting corporate assets. The trial court ruled in favor of Vladimir and his two daughters, the minority shareholders, for all claims alleged by them. While Leo appealed the decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. Could the minority shareholders apply Section 14.30 of the RMBCA to initiate a dissolution based on the claims it won? In other words, is Section 14.30 applicable to the claims of this case? Why or why not? What kind of evidence did the appellate court look at to determine that corporate looting took place?