or does it represent a lack of respect for fiduciary duty and a willingness to bend law and ethics to serve yourself? Wouldn't it be a bad signal that this per

or does it represent a lack of respect for fiduciary duty and a willingness to bend law and ethics to serve yourself? Wouldn't it be a bad signal that this person, if on your board, might pull a similar thing but to your detriment? Say if FB wanted to acquire you, would he take your side or MZ's? Would he give you advice that was beneficial to MZ but detrimental to your company? To be clear I'm not saying MA is actually guilty as the lawsuit alleges, but I'm assuming the facts are true since your conclusion relies on the same premise.