4 ms·
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 ca
by 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.
- himaraya 3y agoRegardless, unless discovery finds a smoking gun that the board acted in bad faith vis a vis the charter, which nothing public indicates, a judge would likely tell investors to pound sand.
- jacquesm 3y agoAfter many lawsuits I've learned to not pre-empt what I think a judge will think of anything. It's actionable. Whether they will prevail (or whether the counterparty will fold) is up for grabs. Note this key quote by Nadella: "“As a partner, I think it does deserve you to be consulted on the big decisions.”" That's one way to look at what might be grounds for a suit. He could be wrong, but that won't stop them from suing to establish that fact and they have very little to lose.