4 ms·
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
by goodoldneon 5y 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 5y agohttps://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 5y agoWhy do you think they dont?
- goodoldneon 5y agoThey 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 5y agothen 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 5y agoYea... you're stretching this one
- ffggvv 5y agoi 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?