> I know a guy who had 51% in the family company. His retired dad had, in exchange for money, deprived the 51% shares of their voting power. You are either lea

> I know a guy who had 51% in the family company. His retired dad had, in exchange for money, deprived the 51% shares of their voting power. You are either leaving out some important details or this is just not accurate. When people say you need to have "51% of shares" to control a company it means that you need to control 51% of voting rights of shares (sometimes different share classes have different voting rights). It would simply have been impossible for "his retired dad to have deprived the 51% shares of their voting power" if his dad didn't have voting control. So something just doesn't add up in this story.