5 ms·
It's especially dubious in Facebook's case because Mark Zuckerberg controls the majority of voting shares. If he wanted to run the company straight into the gro
by AlexandrB 5y ago
It's especially dubious in Facebook's case because Mark Zuckerberg controls the majority of voting shares. If he wanted to run the company straight into the ground I doubt anyone could stop him.
- threatofrain 5y agoI don't think you can sell shares to the public and then deliberately screw over your shareholders. If Zuckerberg acted terribly then he may be exposed to liability.
- munk-a 5y agoThat's a question of malicious intent - if he intended to directly cause damage to specific shareholders than yea - they'd have a case. General idiocy isn't going to fall into that category though - shareholders all voluntarily bought their shares.
- FormerBandmate 5y agoMark Zuckerberg could not make his salary $800 billion, or donate the entire company to charity. That’s what that means, nothing about business decisions
- alasdair_ 5y ago>Mark Zuckerberg could not make his salary $800 billion This would be an interesting test case. The limits on what he can or cannot do are remarkably ill-defined.
- nradov 5y agoMark Zuckerberg couldn't donate Facebook the corporation to charity, but he absolutely could donate all of his personal Facebook shares to charity. If he did that then the charity would have a controlling stake.