specifically agreed upon and be conspicuously noted on the face or back of the stock certificates. 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1524(d). 3 . Borkowski claims that even if we were to find that Felix’s full voting rights had vested, he could proceed with this suit on behalf of Felbor in his capacity as president of the corporation regardless of Felix’s objections. We find this argument to be contrary to existing Pennsylvania corporations law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically held that the president of a corporation could not sue in his capacity as president when there is a deadlock in the board of directors. See Seifert v. Dumatic Industries, Inc., 413 Pa. 395, 400, n. 6, 197 A.2d 454, 456, n. 6 (1964), citing Sterling Industries v. Ball Bearing Pen Corp., 298 N.Y. 483, 84 N.E.2d 790 (1949) (<HOLDING>). 4 . In fact, Plaintiff Borkowski raised the
holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board holding that corporate president who called and participated in shareholders meeting to elect directors was estopped from questioning the legality of the meeting and election of directors who later removed him holding the existence of a deadlock in the board of directors creates no extraordinary powers in the corporate president holding that a confessed judgment was not enforceable against a corporate president who individually guaranteed payment of corporate note signed by him in his capacity as president and which authorized confession of judgment holding that where approval of the board of directors was not formally requested a demand would have been futile for it could hardly be expected that if approval of the board of directors were sought defendant who controlled 50 of the board would have authorized the action against himself