You don't seem to understand the key issue at hand which is that given a number of players owned a % of the action, decisions should not of been made without their permission. Justin acted on behalf of others without a disclaimer or prior notification.
These circumstances are completely normal, predictable and forseen.
If you look at the business transaction purely from a legal view...
Did the backers tell him their investment was for "no chop"? Or check with them if a chop is considered ? (Maybe they did - I wasn't there)
"Decisions should not of been made without their permission." - I'm telling you brother that is all poker is....making decisions....one decision after the other..
That is why anyone would invest in a particular poker player.....the investor likes or "trusts" the player's ability in decision making.
I mean really? He has to get umpteen people to approve perhaps.....slow playing AA three handed ?? ROTF - Can you imagine?
Or
only chop decisions need to be approved? Is that what you mean?