3 ms·
I wouldn't do the same in their shoes and this statement >obligates executives to take advantage of them (fiduciary duty) Is a piece of wisdom that exists ent
by michaelmrose 6y ago
I wouldn't do the same in their shoes and this statement
>obligates executives to take advantage of them (fiduciary duty)
Is a piece of wisdom that exists entirely on the internet unconnected with objective reality. You are obligated to in the general case to serve the shareholders interests but you are absolutely legally entirely able to take a broader and deeper view than this quarters profits and use your own judgement.
Take this situation. Do you really believe that had they NOT done this someone could have gone to court to legally compel the CEO to set up shell corps and tax havens? That isn't have fiduciary duty works. Fiduciary duty means you don't screw the shareholders to help yourself it doesn't mean you are obliged to substitute their judgement for yours or toss out vital but nebulous goals like long term profitability, reputation, and ethics. If they have enough control they have the privilege of firing you not substituting their judgement for yours.
- hvis 6y agoThere is also an argument that doing this gives a company certain competitive advantage. E.g. if (completely made-up example) Lyft were practicing this kind of tax avoidance and Uber did not, the former would have potentially more budget left over to undercut the latter on prices and/or salaries. So proper laws are still needed for an even playing field. Not that I condone Uber's practice anyway.