3 ms·

If these are voting shares, couldn't Tyson theoretically exercise their (albeit small) influence in favor of making Beyond Meat fail? I'm unfamiliar with safegu

If these are voting shares, couldn't Tyson theoretically exercise their (albeit small) influence in favor of making Beyond Meat fail? I'm unfamiliar with safeguards against potential conflicts of interest like this, if any.

mikeyouse 10y ago
Depending on the size of the investment, they may get a board seat. Many startup boards have ~7 board members including the CEO and usually a founder if those two roles aren't the same person. The board basically sets executive compensation and votes on major decisions so a bad actor would have a very hard time messing with a company. The most damage they could cause would likely be sharing the confidential strategy and financial information that they would have access to.
tkyjonathan 10y ago
I see it a bit differently: They may be interested in integrating Beyond Meat into their distribution pipeline with this purchase in order for their investment to pay off. And why not? Growing animals for 300days in very poor conditions while paying pesky humans to take care of them, slaughter them, slice them up and transport them. You can just mix a couple plant-based ingredients and produce a decent burger instead at a fraction of the cost and time - it scales way better. Then you have all those reporters with their hidden camera of what goes on in those factory farms - why do you need all that bad publicity anyway. This is good publicity for them, cheaper to produce, healthier for humans and the environment. I cannot see a downside to this for any company or society.
- ianai 10y ago
  Asimov sold me. Yeast and algae are the (maybe distant) future.
- wuschel 10y ago
  Spot on - see my post above. They are very much interested in portfolio and tech integration.
dogma1138 10y ago
No, you can't act against the interests of the company as a voting shareholder (or any for that matter, you can't buy shares and dump them at a lower price repeatedly for example effectively spending money to devalue the company). Depending on the shareholder agreement you will also be bound to additional guidelines to deal with conflict of interests and voting etiquette.
- adrianN 10y ago
  A malicious actor could probably do a lot of damage just by stalling and increasing bureaucracy without going "against the interests of the company" in an illegal way.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Not really the SHA has clauses about that (usually under the deadlock provisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock_provision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock_provision), in most cases if you don't show up for a vote or intentionally block it you will be removed, additionally normally shares that you buy as an investment if they come with voting rights would come tied to a voting proxy that proxy is usually the chairman so if you don't show up for a meeting the chairman would vote on your behalf. Pretty much there isn't that much mess you can do, the SHA will be defined to protect the company, you can't act against the interest of the company, you can't dump the shares since the other shareholders have the right of refusal and there are 101 other regulations. You also need to remember that in most cases there is no need of a unanimous vote of all shareholders, public companies usually follow the 51% rule which means that if you control 51% of the shares you control the company. There will not be many cases where company operate without a designated majority shareholder, this would scare of investors, the minority shareholders also don't share in any of the revenue of the company unless the company is sold or a dividend is declared so effectively minority stock is "worthless" in most cases and is only used as an investment. If you own 49% of the company you would only ever see any money if the company is sold, or the majority decided to grant dividends and you effectively can only sell that stock to the company/majority shareholder unless they refuse it and based on the specifics of the SHA they are also allowed to block sells to other parties.

mikeyouse 10y ago

Depending on the size of the investment, they may get a board seat. Many startup boards have ~7 board members including the CEO and usually a founder if those two roles aren't the same person. The board basically sets executive compensation and votes on major decisions so a bad actor would have a very hard time messing with a company. The most damage they could cause would likely be sharing the confidential strategy and financial information that they would have access to.

tkyjonathan 10y ago

I see it a bit differently: They may be interested in integrating Beyond Meat into their distribution pipeline with this purchase in order for their investment to pay off. And why not? Growing animals for 300days in very poor conditions while paying pesky humans to take care of them, slaughter them, slice them up and transport them. You can just mix a couple plant-based ingredients and produce a decent burger instead at a fraction of the cost and time - it scales way better. Then you have all those reporters with their hidden camera of what goes on in those factory farms - why do you need all that bad publicity anyway. This is good publicity for them, cheaper to produce, healthier for humans and the environment. I cannot see a downside to this for any company or society.

ianai 10y ago
Asimov sold me. Yeast and algae are the (maybe distant) future.
wuschel 10y ago
Spot on - see my post above. They are very much interested in portfolio and tech integration.

dogma1138 10y ago

No, you can't act against the interests of the company as a voting shareholder (or any for that matter, you can't buy shares and dump them at a lower price repeatedly for example effectively spending money to devalue the company). Depending on the shareholder agreement you will also be bound to additional guidelines to deal with conflict of interests and voting etiquette.

adrianN 10y ago
A malicious actor could probably do a lot of damage just by stalling and increasing bureaucracy without going "against the interests of the company" in an illegal way.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Not really the SHA has clauses about that (usually under the deadlock provisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock_provision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock_provision), in most cases if you don't show up for a vote or intentionally block it you will be removed, additionally normally shares that you buy as an investment if they come with voting rights would come tied to a voting proxy that proxy is usually the chairman so if you don't show up for a meeting the chairman would vote on your behalf. Pretty much there isn't that much mess you can do, the SHA will be defined to protect the company, you can't act against the interest of the company, you can't dump the shares since the other shareholders have the right of refusal and there are 101 other regulations. You also need to remember that in most cases there is no need of a unanimous vote of all shareholders, public companies usually follow the 51% rule which means that if you control 51% of the shares you control the company. There will not be many cases where company operate without a designated majority shareholder, this would scare of investors, the minority shareholders also don't share in any of the revenue of the company unless the company is sold or a dividend is declared so effectively minority stock is "worthless" in most cases and is only used as an investment. If you own 49% of the company you would only ever see any money if the company is sold, or the majority decided to grant dividends and you effectively can only sell that stock to the company/majority shareholder unless they refuse it and based on the specifics of the SHA they are also allowed to block sells to other parties.