3 ms·
Seems like there's at least one "third option". The rights of minority shareholders don't have to be as minimal as they are. How about "anyone who owns stock is
by stickfigure 6y ago
Seems like there's at least one "third option". The rights of minority shareholders don't have to be as minimal as they are. How about "anyone who owns stock is entitled to look at the books?"
- nickff 6y agoThis is the rule for companies with a certain number of investors (500 IIRC). The problem is that producing the (audited) books is the most expensive part of being a public corporation.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> How about "anyone who owns stock is entitled to look at the books?" Books and records inspections are expensive for both issuer and investor. For the issuer, it almost always requires legal counsel be retained. If a company wants to raise private capital from retail investors, the JOBS Act created Reg A+ [1] for them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_A#Regulation_A+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_A#Regulation_A+
- edoceo 6y agoHigh Times (the weed mag, now media company) is doing a pretty visible RegA+ for anyone interested to see what that (mess?) looks like.
- jpeg_hero 6y agoShhhhhh. "Specific statutes in the California Corporations Code provide shareholders the right to inspect bylaws, accounting books, records, minutes and financial statements. The California Corporations Code allows the court to enforce these rights."
- stickfigure 6y agoDoes that apply to Delaware corporations headquartered in California?
- jpeg_hero 6y agono.