5 ms·
Yes, I knew that when I posted this the reply was coming. I'm not parent commenter so I won't defend _everything_ part. But it is clear that decisions must be m
by teirce 5y ago
Yes, I knew that when I posted this the reply was coming. I'm not parent commenter so I won't defend _everything_ part. But it is clear that decisions must be made with the intent to benefit shareholders (or as you pointed out, at least not intentionally as charity (unless that could be construed as benefiting shareholders)).
It's clear there is a lot of ambiguity involved. I believe this is covered in the wikipedia article but I haven't read the full thing in a long time.
- abandonliberty 5y agoThanks for answering! I don't feel like arguing with the funny armchair lawyers leaked from Reddit who have never heard of fiduciary duty. I'm an armchair lawyer too, and, yes, it's a bit more nuanced, but not really meaningfully so. If a board member found out about Smile, they'd be legally obligated to put reasonable efforts into ensuring it's in the best interest of the company. Might not apply in all jurisdictions or corporate structures (probably most, but happy to learn where it doesn't!), applies to companies not shareholders (sometimes different), and I am still not a lawyer. Would love to find out where I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell from what the citations of other non-lawyer "I did my own research" posts, it's not going to happen here.