Sal now called Satya, and told him that most of RIC's employees are furious at the board and that he (Sal) and many other members of the Tolerance development team would be happy to work for Microsoft in creating a product like Tolerance. Satya hired Sal to work for Microsoft, and agreed to hire any other members of the Tolerance team who would like to leave RIC and join Microsoft. Sal and his team were instructed to develop a product like Tolerance, as long as they did not infringe on RIC's intellectual property.
Sal busied himself with developing a new product from scratch, but he burned with anger about being pushed out of the company that he founded. Using a computer in his Microsoft office, he connected to RIC's network. That network was password-protected, but Sal was able to enter using his old password from when he was RIC's CEO (RIC didn't remove his account from the system yet). He then placed a computer virus in RIC's computer system, which went through the system and destroyed any files related to Tolerance. Since Sal used to be RIC's CEO, his account had access to all the backup servers, so the virus was able to destroy Tolerance completely. You may assume that Sal is liable to RIC in torts for destroying Tolerance.
RIC sued Microsoft for the harm caused to RIC by Sal's insertion of a virus that destroyed Tolerance. Patrick, one of RIC's shareholders, sued RIC's board for the harm caused to RIC by the Board Decision. Among other arguments, Patrick alleged that a reasonable director would have taken more time and sought more information before deciding to remove the Tolerance Bias, given the CEO's warning that doing this could cause RIC to be out of business within weeks. RIC's board did not contest this (so you may assume Patrick's allegation is true), nor did it challenge Patrick's standing to sue (so do not discuss standing issues).
Discuss RIC's suit and Patrick's suit