3 ms·
Interesting re-reading the Wikipedia link after reading some of the case law summaries this sticks out: > Also, the duties [of board of directors] are owed to
by elcritch 1y ago
Interesting re-reading the Wikipedia link after reading some of the case law summaries this sticks out:
> Also, the duties [of board of directors] are owed to the company itself, and not to any other entity.[42] This does not mean that directors can never stand in a fiduciary relationship to the individual shareholders; they may well have such a duty in certain circumstances.[43]
Again it appears more nuanced than just “board of directors have fiduciary responsibility to minority shareholders”. Actually seems incorrect to phrase it that way even.
- bawolff 1y agoI think the idea is more that directors have a duty to the company (not the minority shareholder), and minority shareholders can bring suit on behalf of the company to allege that the duty to the company (and not themselves) was violated. When talking informally that feels like it amounts to basically the same thing, just technically slightly different [ianal,i might be out of my depth here]
- elcritch 1y agoIANAL either, which is why I asked for case law. I’d like to understand a bit more. Strong statements like the OPs without qualifications can lead to skewed ideas. For example look at the amount of damage done by the “shareholder primacy” theory which many believe is a core legal requirement rather than a legal theory.