4 ms·

Nonsense--there is no "legal duty to maximize profits". That concept isn't really meaningful: maximize over what term? In fact Amazon is probably the number o

Nonsense--there is no "legal duty to maximize profits". That concept isn't really meaningful: maximize over what term? In fact Amazon is probably the number one counter-example to that idea, they've never prioritized profits and have plowed everything they can back into infrastructure. There's also no "legal duty to pay employees as little as possible", nor "legal duty to fight unionization" nor a hundred other things that some corporations do against the interests of their employees. For publicly traded companies the only recourse shareholders have is to vote out the board if they don't think things are being run correctly, but there's no law that's defining what correctly is.

hannasanarion 8y ago
> there is no "legal duty to maximize profits". For publicly traded companies, there is: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/s...
- femto113 8y ago
  Again, no, and IMO the cited case (eBay v Craigslist founders) is again more of a counter example. From the court opinion: > Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders. "Value" yes, but again says nothing about "profit". The court acknowledged different stockholders can and do have different and even conflicting definitions for value, and that a contract (not a law) should be used to resolve those differences. In the end the only thing that the judge ruled against were actions specifically designed to destroy the value of the company's stock by making it harder to buy and sell. He didn't order e.g. that Craigslist raise ad prices even though it's widely believed they hold a ton of pricing power and are deliberately avoiding maximizing profit because they prioritize community.

hannasanarion 8y ago

> there is no "legal duty to maximize profits". For publicly traded companies, there is: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/s...

femto113 8y ago
Again, no, and IMO the cited case (eBay v Craigslist founders) is again more of a counter example. From the court opinion: > Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders. "Value" yes, but again says nothing about "profit". The court acknowledged different stockholders can and do have different and even conflicting definitions for value, and that a contract (not a law) should be used to resolve those differences. In the end the only thing that the judge ruled against were actions specifically designed to destroy the value of the company's stock by making it harder to buy and sell. He didn't order e.g. that Craigslist raise ad prices even though it's widely believed they hold a ton of pricing power and are deliberately avoiding maximizing profit because they prioritize community.