4 ms·

seems arbitrary whats considered a "bad actor". maybe i think climate activist shareholders in energy companies are hostile / bad actors. Can i selectively dil

• goodoldneon 4y ago
  Are they actively attempting a hostile takeover and the board thinks that they'll hurt the company? Then I think that'd be legal. Otherwise I don't see how you could make a legally defensible argument around diluting shareholders just because of their beliefs
  • ffggvv 4y ago
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/investing/exxon-shareholders-climate-activist/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/investing/exxon-shareholders-... in this case yes. wonder why they dont
    • orhmeh09 4y ago
      Why do you think they dont?
    • goodoldneon 4y ago
      They were elected to the board by shareholders. That's entirely different than a hostile takeover. You can't say "this is not in the interest of the shareholders" when the shareholders voted for it
      • ffggvv 4y ago
        then lets dilute the shareholders who voted for it as theyh are clearly idealogically driven and actively hostile to the company itself or its profitability
        • goodoldneon 4y ago
          Yea... you're stretching this one
          • ffggvv 4y ago
            i dont see why. isnt that why they are saying elon is bad? because hes driving for free speech? why is it okay if its one person, or a few people, but >n bad actors is fine?
• mrtesthah 4y ago
  >seems arbitrary whats considered a "bad actor". Well, I guess if you’re a moral relativist that might be the case. I mean, why not burn the rest of the planet down for temporary profits? Why not enslave children in the Congo? It benefits the shareholders after all. How about murder and torture for hire? These decisions just seem so arbitrary. *shrug*