4 ms·
Serious question: Is there any way at all for a minority shareholder to avoid getting royally screwed in situations like these? Or are they completely at the me
by marvin 10y ago
Serious question: Is there any way at all for a minority shareholder to avoid getting royally screwed in situations like these? Or are they completely at the mercy of the majority to be very nice and decent and not just give them the short end of the stick?
Would it e.g. provide any benefit at all to have a clause about dilution not reducing ownership share more than the majority owners, or would it be possible to weasel out of such an agreement too? How do the rich and powerful do business with each other if agreements are this open to interpretation and backstabbing?
- AdamN 10y agoThe rich have better lawyers on their side and get better terms. Still, the rich get screwed too. They just have more resources to handle it (or they become unrich).
- yoaviram 10y agoIt's all down to the shareholder agreement. For example ours says all decisions are made by consensus, no matter how many shares you have. That's an extreme case which works with a very limited amount of shareholders, but the point is that you can protect minority rights.
- maxerickson 10y agoI think the cynical take is the only surefire one. If there isn't a liquid market where the thing can be sold (and thus a reliable price for it), treat it like it isn't worth anything. It's a conservative strategy, avoiding risk rather than seeking to mitigate it.