corporation accepts the benefits from and reaffirms the validity of a related party transaction after all of the “interested parties” have left the corporation, this Court holds that the successor corporation is estopped by ratification from asserting that the transaction is void. Under these circumstances, more traditional principles of ratification should be applicable. Cf. Link Assoc. v. Jefferson Standard, 223 Va. 479, 484-85 (1982) (“A party intending to repudiate a contract on the ground of fraud must act within a reasonable time and with great punctuality upon learning of the wrong. He will be deemed to have waived his right of repudiation if, after discovery of the fraud, he treats the contract as a subsisting obligation.”); Brewer v. Bank of Danville, 202 Va. 807, 814 (1961) (<HOLDING>); A.I.M. Percolating Corp. v. Ferrodine Chem.
holding that the trust fund and denuding theories of recovery were considered to belong to the debtor corporation because each action was created for the benefit of the corporation ie to vindicate injury to the corporation caused by improper actions by control persons holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation holding that individuals assumption of the role of president of the corporation and her authority to sign documents on behalf of the corporation demonstrate that she had the requisite control over the corporation for purposes of finding individual liability under section 5a holding that the action on the part of the corporation in making payments for so long a period without objection constituted a ratification of the agreement by the corporation holding that where the policy includes indemnification coverage to the corporation proceeds are not property of the estate where there is no proof of payments by corporation of payments