What % membership in the cc did the unfortunate 3rd member hold?
Dave, a very valid question. 20% shareholding. The share structure was 60%, 20%, 20%.

This was a classic mistake in CC law. A minimum 'blocking' % needs to be at least 26%.

The problem was that only one business meeting was ever held between all three CC members. It would be understood that, at routine business meetings, various members voting as they see fit. This is business. The difficulty came in that when the initial challenges arose (over correct turnover declarations, operating expenses & tax due), one of the early plays by the hijack attorney, was to attempt to bar the 3rd member from meeting, or even talking to the other CC members. So, no members' meetings were ever held after that.

Based on the modus of the hijackers, even controlling interests could have been bypassed by their tactics.

Hijacker's Principle #4
Use every means to isolate the hijack victim from being able to protect their interest in the business / CC.

Ironically, the very principles used by the hijackers, in isolating the hijack victim from the hijackers are these that allow liquidation of a business, in law.

Anti-Hijack Principle #1
He who controls the money, is king!