4 ms·

"We knowingly bought into a scheme where one man - the one we're suing - has 51% of the voting power on all corporate affairs. We think he screwed up and owes u

"We knowingly bought into a scheme where one man - the one we're suing - has 51% of the voting power on all corporate affairs. We think he screwed up and owes us money. Can you help us?" - the shareholders to the Delaware CoC, in effect. Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American.

SoftTalker 1y ago
[flagged]
- MegaButts 1y ago
  There are so many reasons to hate Zuck. But bringing up something he said as a teenager in a private conversation is one of the dumbest reasons.
  - pbalau 1y ago
    Is there any proof that he said that, apart the movie? I'm not arguing he didn't, but the only place I've found to support that is the movie. I didn't try very hard either...
    - triceratops 1y ago
      Was that in the movie? I thought it came from emails released in court.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Yes, he said (well, typed) it. https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
      - pbalau 1y ago
        Thanks for the link, but I can read that, too many intrusive ads. I'll give it a go when I get to a computer.
        buildsjets 1y ago
        Goalpost mover.
  - isx726552 1y ago
    It was a comment revealing his attitude towards what would soon become his customers in a globally-impactful business over which he has sole control. It’s more relevant than ever today.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      "Let every 40-year-old be measured by the shittiest thing they said when they were 19"
      - al_borland 1y ago
        In most cases those comments weren’t about the service they still running at 40. His comment was also him self-reporting that he shouldn’t be trusted with user data, when his whole business revolves around user data. If it was some off color joke in poor taste, I wouldn’t care so much.
      - jjulius 1y ago
        I don't disagree with your point, but nothing is absolute. In this case, he's essentially done a tremendously good job of showing us since then that, no, we can't trust him. He's more than lived up to his words.
      - dblohm7 1y ago
        Even if he said something in his role as CEO of Facebook? "Young people are just smarter" and so on...
        margalabargala 1y ago
        He's an entirely different person now. There is no one under the age of 45 on the planet who would say "you know, yeah, I'm fundamentally the same person I was 22 years ago." I'm not saying he's a better person. Just different. Judge him by what he says and does now, which is no better.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Me, as a teenager: "I am building the Torment Nexus, and I am calling it Happy Kittens Inc." Me, 10 years later: "I am proud to unveil Happy Kittens Inc." You: "That's the Torment Nexus." My irrational fans: "There's no reason to bring up something he said as a teenager."
gnopgnip 1y ago
The company, board of directors still owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. Having 51% of voting control doesn't change that.
- philipov 1y ago
  If you don't like how a company is being managed, your recourse is to pull your investment.
  - jncfhnb 1y ago
    You can also work collectively with other shareholders to directly impact the board
  - gnopgnip 1y ago
    That wouldn't make the investors whole for past violations, which is why they are suing for breach of fiduciary duty.
    - philipov 1y ago
      Except that there are limits on fiduciary duty. It should not be confused for a right to earn money. Losing money on a bad investment is part of the game. The duty that they have is to carry out the terms of the investment prospectus and nothing more.
      - bryanlarsen 1y ago
        Shareholders have the right to not get lied to by executives. The SEC forces companies to put lots of stuff into their annual reports, giving companies lots of opportunities to lie to shareholders. Companies basically write "we aren't doing anything morally ambiguous" in their annual reports, almost always lying when they do so. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
      - darth_avocado 1y ago
palmotea 1y ago
> Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American. So? What's your point? We should root for Zuckerberg because the people who are suing him are rich? Zuckerberg is an order of magnitude worse in all those resentment metrics you list than the people who are suing him.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- orochimaaru 1y ago
  Not true. These are people who are likely responsible for global economic meltdowns and then asking for handouts (anyone remember 2008). Zuck isn’t making anyone’s life harder without them signing into his platforms. Just stay off of them if you don’t like zuck. But you can’t stay off the financial system. So, creepy as zuck maybe, I think he is impact for evil is a whole lot less.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  My point is that everyone involved is awful and that none of this should happen in a remotely sane society. What kind of corporate governance model allows for a dictatorship? Why aren't the shareholders just selling if they think they were wronged the better part of a decade ago? Because we're insane. Maybe they're filing the suit out of the fiduciary duty to their fund members. Worst-case scenario, it goes nowhere. Best-case scenario, they get money out of Meta. Now, they're doing this off the backs of the people of Delaware, but whatever.
v5v3 1y ago
Have you worked in this area? I have worked with asset managers, employees come from all around the world and vary in background. Yes there will be a weighting to the more privileged kids but most of the jobs don't make big bonuses. That's just the Sales leads and funds managers. But it's irrelevant. As the institutional investors who invest are doing so for their underlying investors e.g. Pension Funds. The people suing, if win, will report higher results and their bonuses will be higher but so will the underlying investors.

SoftTalker 1y ago

[flagged]

MegaButts 1y ago
There are so many reasons to hate Zuck. But bringing up something he said as a teenager in a private conversation is one of the dumbest reasons.
- pbalau 1y ago
  Is there any proof that he said that, apart the movie? I'm not arguing he didn't, but the only place I've found to support that is the movie. I didn't try very hard either...
  - triceratops 1y ago
    Was that in the movie? I thought it came from emails released in court.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Yes, he said (well, typed) it. https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
    - pbalau 1y ago
      Thanks for the link, but I can read that, too many intrusive ads. I'll give it a go when I get to a computer.
      - buildsjets 1y ago
        Goalpost mover.
- isx726552 1y ago
  It was a comment revealing his attitude towards what would soon become his customers in a globally-impactful business over which he has sole control. It’s more relevant than ever today.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    "Let every 40-year-old be measured by the shittiest thing they said when they were 19"
    - al_borland 1y ago
      In most cases those comments weren’t about the service they still running at 40. His comment was also him self-reporting that he shouldn’t be trusted with user data, when his whole business revolves around user data. If it was some off color joke in poor taste, I wouldn’t care so much.
    - jjulius 1y ago
      I don't disagree with your point, but nothing is absolute. In this case, he's essentially done a tremendously good job of showing us since then that, no, we can't trust him. He's more than lived up to his words.
    - dblohm7 1y ago
      Even if he said something in his role as CEO of Facebook? "Young people are just smarter" and so on...
      - margalabargala 1y ago
        He's an entirely different person now. There is no one under the age of 45 on the planet who would say "you know, yeah, I'm fundamentally the same person I was 22 years ago." I'm not saying he's a better person. Just different. Judge him by what he says and does now, which is no better.
- immibis 1y ago
  Me, as a teenager: "I am building the Torment Nexus, and I am calling it Happy Kittens Inc." Me, 10 years later: "I am proud to unveil Happy Kittens Inc." You: "That's the Torment Nexus." My irrational fans: "There's no reason to bring up something he said as a teenager."

gnopgnip 1y ago

The company, board of directors still owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. Having 51% of voting control doesn't change that.

philipov 1y ago
If you don't like how a company is being managed, your recourse is to pull your investment.
- jncfhnb 1y ago
  You can also work collectively with other shareholders to directly impact the board
- gnopgnip 1y ago
  That wouldn't make the investors whole for past violations, which is why they are suing for breach of fiduciary duty.
  - philipov 1y ago
    Except that there are limits on fiduciary duty. It should not be confused for a right to earn money. Losing money on a bad investment is part of the game. The duty that they have is to carry out the terms of the investment prospectus and nothing more.
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Shareholders have the right to not get lied to by executives. The SEC forces companies to put lots of stuff into their annual reports, giving companies lots of opportunities to lie to shareholders. Companies basically write "we aren't doing anything morally ambiguous" in their annual reports, almost always lying when they do so. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
    - darth_avocado 1y ago

palmotea 1y ago

> Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American. So? What's your point? We should root for Zuckerberg because the people who are suing him are rich? Zuckerberg is an order of magnitude worse in all those resentment metrics you list than the people who are suing him.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
orochimaaru 1y ago
Not true. These are people who are likely responsible for global economic meltdowns and then asking for handouts (anyone remember 2008). Zuck isn’t making anyone’s life harder without them signing into his platforms. Just stay off of them if you don’t like zuck. But you can’t stay off the financial system. So, creepy as zuck maybe, I think he is impact for evil is a whole lot less.
lenerdenator 1y ago
My point is that everyone involved is awful and that none of this should happen in a remotely sane society. What kind of corporate governance model allows for a dictatorship? Why aren't the shareholders just selling if they think they were wronged the better part of a decade ago? Because we're insane. Maybe they're filing the suit out of the fiduciary duty to their fund members. Worst-case scenario, it goes nowhere. Best-case scenario, they get money out of Meta. Now, they're doing this off the backs of the people of Delaware, but whatever.

v5v3 1y ago

Have you worked in this area? I have worked with asset managers, employees come from all around the world and vary in background. Yes there will be a weighting to the more privileged kids but most of the jobs don't make big bonuses. That's just the Sales leads and funds managers. But it's irrelevant. As the institutional investors who invest are doing so for their underlying investors e.g. Pension Funds. The people suing, if win, will report higher results and their bonuses will be higher but so will the underlying investors.