Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
I bet the chairman, Mark Zuckerberg, is going to steer the board to get right on with punishing the CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for his careless administration of the company.
They only pull their investments if they fail.
The reply I answered mentioned the fiduciary duty to all shareholders, but, in my limited understanding of the term, based on how I see the term used, this means the company has an obligation to make moneis for the shareholders. Which Meta does, quite well.
Obviously, people can be dissatisfied about anything, but I'm not sure Meta is failing the "fiduciary duty" aspect.
> The trial, set to begin Wednesday in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, aims to hold Zuckerberg, former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg and other former executives personally liable for the billions the company spent to resolve allegations that it failed to safeguard user data.
Not OP but they were very confident in what they wrote. I'd assume they'd be able to provide evidence. Just because it's the law doesn't mean we're not gonna get asked for evidence. Maybe we should be more careful with our claims then.
However reading some of the case law it seems that being a majority stockholder wasn’t always held the have same fiduciary responsibilities. Sounds like they still don’t in some jurisdictions?
Sort of fascinating and shows there’s some legal distinctions between majority stockholders and board of directors. IANAL but seems less cut and dry than summary articles pretend.
A blanket statement like the one I replied to oversimplifies things and implies Delaware law is federal law. It may be the largest and most influential in the US but it’s not the only equity law in the US.
> Also, the duties [of board of directors] are owed to the company itself, and not to any other entity.[42] This does not mean that directors can never stand in a fiduciary relationship to the individual shareholders; they may well have such a duty in certain circumstances.[43]
Again it appears more nuanced than just “board of directors have fiduciary responsibility to minority shareholders”. Actually seems incorrect to phrase it that way even.
The other comment's Wikipedia link had footnotes for "Percival vs Wright [1902]" and "Coleman v Myers [1977]", but these are UK and New Zealand cases.
For the US, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Fiduciary_duties_und... seems most appropriate wiki link but most of the footnotes were for analysis and not cases.
Making money comes after complying with law and rules.
So? What's your point? We should root for Zuckerberg because the people who are suing him are rich? Zuckerberg is an order of magnitude worse in all those resentment metrics you list than the people who are suing him.
But you can’t stay off the financial system. So, creepy as zuck maybe, I think he is impact for evil is a whole lot less.
Because we're insane.
Maybe they're filing the suit out of the fiduciary duty to their fund members. Worst-case scenario, it goes nowhere. Best-case scenario, they get money out of Meta. Now, they're doing this off the backs of the people of Delaware, but whatever.
I have worked with asset managers, employees come from all around the world and vary in background. Yes there will be a weighting to the more privileged kids but most of the jobs don't make big bonuses. That's just the Sales leads and funds managers.
But it's irrelevant. As the institutional investors who invest are doing so for their underlying investors e.g. Pension Funds.
The people suing, if win, will report higher results and their bonuses will be higher but so will the underlying investors.
Companies like this are too big to be held accountable. Every problem is soluble given their capitalization, the only consequence is irritation and fighting—usually among those already complicit and merely concerned that they didn't maximize their view—of interest to few.
Meanwhile, Rome is burning. Oh well.
Individuals directors are being sued, not the company
But, yeah, the $8B in question hardly seems existential to FB.
This suit is regarding a privacy order they failed to meet and the investors claim this led to the Cambridge Analytics affair. Not a once a quarter repeat event.
Perhaps if we hang around here looking sad someone else will research the answer and tell us?
v5v3•8h ago
tester756•8h ago
vkou•8h ago
FredPret•7h ago
It's embedded in the sales process of very many, perhaps most, businesses, and their margins are huge.
https://valustox.com/META