3 ms·
I 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 com
by bawolff 1y ago
I 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.