3 ms·
>It just seems strange that there isn't some rule saying that the board has to treat shareholders more or less equally. AIUI, there is such a rule, and, FWIW,
by SilasX 5y ago
>It just seems strange that there isn't some rule saying that the board has to treat shareholders more or less equally.
AIUI, there is such a rule, and, FWIW, that’s why I found the OP’s explanation[1] somewhat dubious. Deliberately sabotaging the corporation for the benefit of another one that the 51%er owns … seems like the kind of thing that the courts would strike down.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31160874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31160874
- tptacek 5y agoPoison pills have been settled law in the US for decades.
- SilasX 5y agoWhich must be why I didn’t object to that part, only to the (explanation of the legal) justification given. Could you give my comment a re-read and ensure you were replying to the right one?
- SilasX 5y agoSeriously, what the heck? I joined in to echo disagreement about a justification given -- one which would (dubiously) imply that you can do whatever the heck you want with the company once you control 51% (like siphoning resources to another company you fully own). I never disputed poison pills being legal, only one comment's justification for that conclusion. It's not responsive to simply assert that poison pills are "settled law", since I wasn't ever disputing that, and no clear-headed, good-faith reading of my post would attribute such a remark to me. And yet ... not only do some of you think the above reply is somehow responsive (or not a strawman), you seem to think I'm wrong to simply point out how it isn't. Someone want to tell me what's going on? Is there some deep insight I can't seem to fathom from tptacek's non-repsonsive, dismissive reply that makes it all somehow worthwhile?