2 ms·

The result is the same, but thanks for that clarity. Your point clears up a misunderstanding I've had about how that works for a while.

• k__ 11y ago
  The difference is: If he owns >50% of the company, no one can sue him over this matter, because there is no way that >50% of the shareholders have a different opinion about payment. AFAIK he owns <20% of the company, so there are about >80% of shareholders who can have a different opinion about payment.
  • gamblor956 11y ago
    Key term: "disinterested majority" In this case Zuck could not be part of the disinterested majority since it was his salary up for vote. Consequently, his shares (and the accompanying votes) should have been ignored.
    • TheCoelacanth 11y ago
      The article says that the vote only concerned the salaries of the six directors who are not employed by Facebook in some other capacity, so Zuckerberg wasn't voting on his own salary.
      • k__ 11y ago
        Well, seems to me like he was too greedy and careless. If he would have kept >50%, everything would be fine.