> Whether through dual class shares, or retaining a large % stake, it's the same. But is it the same? In one case, the family owns the majority of the company

> Whether through dual class shares, or retaining a large % stake, it's the same. But is it the same? In one case, the family owns the majority of the company and controls it. In the other case, the family only owns a small percentage, yet still controls the company. Can a family that doesn't own a company be trusted to act in the company's best interests, or can they be trusted act in their own interests, using their control to extract as much money from the company into their own pockets, destroying the company in the process? That's what I think the story is getting at, but it's poorly written.