4 ms·
Even if they were three separate companies wouldn't Mark still have voting control of all three companies?
by samfisher83 6y ago
Even if they were three separate companies wouldn't Mark still have voting control of all three companies?
- SerLava 6y agoI don't think so? Can anyone answer this definitively?
- dsr_ 6y agoThe FTC could, potentially, require: 1. That FB split into N independent companies, whereupon each share of FB would become 1 share in each of N companies. 2. That the supermajor shareholders (say, more than 10% of any company) each pick at most one company to retain that interest in, and sell off shares in the other companies until they had less than 10% of each of those). 3. That the new companies avoid overlapping directors. It would be a long time in court. See the breakup of AT&T.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoAnd then it would eventually come back together. See ATT. https://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-history/ https://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-hist...
- mrkramer 6y ago"And then it would eventually come back together." That would be hilarious.
- katbyte 6y agoBut are there not multiple phone companies now instead of just one?
- lotsofpulp 6y agoYes, it was just a possibly funny observation that most of the entities created from the monopoly ended up back in an entity called ATT.
- samfisher83 6y agoThey have all pretty much merged back into AT&T or Verizon. Those two companies together would be the original MA Bell.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoAnd Centurylink.
- aylmao 6y agoDuopolies are bad, but I'd say still better than monopolies.
- oblio 6y agoEven better, Standard Oil.
- lovecg 6y agoReminds me of Terminator 2.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoIs this not itself an antitrust issue? If so, why?
- CPLX 6y agoGenerally no, he couldn't do that, as that would be the opposite of the concept of divestment.
- tarboreus 6y agoI think divestiture would mean a full spin-off to an independent entity.