3 ms·

I really don't think investors have the case you think they do. They may ultimately pin the board on some technicality but the case looks far from straightforwa

I really don't think investors have the case you think they do. They may ultimately pin the board on some technicality but the case looks far from straightforward. Anyways, it looks like Sam has finally started talking with the board again. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-openai-board-open-talks-to-negotiate-his-possible-return https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-op...

jacquesm 3y ago
Everybody involved has more to gain by patching things up and the 'rogue' board members vacating their seats, the sooner they realize that the better. As for whether or not investors have a case: Microsoft may not, but the smaller investors probably do because they can fairly easily prove that their interests were harmed by the ill advised actions of the board.
- himaraya 3y ago
  The nonprofit board holds no fiduciary duty to for-profit investors, big or small. In theory, I suppose you could sue the board over undermining the charter but that seems tricky itself, this case aside.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    You keep saying that. But only a judge can confirm that that means that they are able to cause harm without consequences. I don't buy that. The charter is not the only thing that governs what a board can and can not do, just like you can't contract out of the law in any other way a non-profit board members does not have automatic and complete immunity from the fall-out of their actions. That would be an interesting device: a full blown corporate armor that exceeds even the degree of insulation an indemnification would offer. It would be the boardroom equivalent of a magic cloak.
    - himaraya 3y ago
      Harming investors in order to uphold the nonprofit charter sounds more reasonable than you suggest. Take it from Matt Levine. I don't think investors would win this line of argument. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-21/openai-is-a-strange-nonprofit https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-21/openai...
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        But there is no proof whatsoever that they did this to uphold the nonprofit charter. And until that proof surfaces I'm going on the assumption that it doesn't exist because if it does exist they would have certainly used it to bolster their case. Note Ilya's statement of regret and that none of the board members have said a word and that the current CEO is nowhere to be seen. That does not look like a group of people that are acting boldly in the defense of their corporate charter to me. It looks like a bunch of weasels that thought they could get away with murdering the chicken while they were unattended for five minutes and they're now all covered with blood and pretending to be innocent.
        himaraya 3y ago
        I think that argument fares even worse. The board only needs to prove to a judge they believed firing Sam would benefit the charter, and the leaks from their camp have stated as much. The board has deliberately stayed silent to avoid legal exposure, not a surprise.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > The board only needs to prove to a judge they believed firing Sam would benefit the charter, and the leaks from their camp have stated as much. Leaks say whatever they want to say and if I found myself in this position - highly unlikely - and I would have leaked something it would have definitely been something to make me look good. Or did you think that if it made them look bad that it would have been leaked as well? In that case I can see your point.

jacquesm 3y ago

Everybody involved has more to gain by patching things up and the 'rogue' board members vacating their seats, the sooner they realize that the better. As for whether or not investors have a case: Microsoft may not, but the smaller investors probably do because they can fairly easily prove that their interests were harmed by the ill advised actions of the board.

himaraya 3y ago
The nonprofit board holds no fiduciary duty to for-profit investors, big or small. In theory, I suppose you could sue the board over undermining the charter but that seems tricky itself, this case aside.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  You keep saying that. But only a judge can confirm that that means that they are able to cause harm without consequences. I don't buy that. The charter is not the only thing that governs what a board can and can not do, just like you can't contract out of the law in any other way a non-profit board members does not have automatic and complete immunity from the fall-out of their actions. That would be an interesting device: a full blown corporate armor that exceeds even the degree of insulation an indemnification would offer. It would be the boardroom equivalent of a magic cloak.
  - himaraya 3y ago
    Harming investors in order to uphold the nonprofit charter sounds more reasonable than you suggest. Take it from Matt Levine. I don't think investors would win this line of argument. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-21/openai-is-a-strange-nonprofit https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-21/openai...
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      But there is no proof whatsoever that they did this to uphold the nonprofit charter. And until that proof surfaces I'm going on the assumption that it doesn't exist because if it does exist they would have certainly used it to bolster their case. Note Ilya's statement of regret and that none of the board members have said a word and that the current CEO is nowhere to be seen. That does not look like a group of people that are acting boldly in the defense of their corporate charter to me. It looks like a bunch of weasels that thought they could get away with murdering the chicken while they were unattended for five minutes and they're now all covered with blood and pretending to be innocent.
      - himaraya 3y ago
        I think that argument fares even worse. The board only needs to prove to a judge they believed firing Sam would benefit the charter, and the leaks from their camp have stated as much. The board has deliberately stayed silent to avoid legal exposure, not a surprise.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > The board only needs to prove to a judge they believed firing Sam would benefit the charter, and the leaks from their camp have stated as much. Leaks say whatever they want to say and if I found myself in this position - highly unlikely - and I would have leaked something it would have definitely been something to make me look good. Or did you think that if it made them look bad that it would have been leaked as well? In that case I can see your point.