3 ms·
what's wild is that it could be argued that this was in the shareholders' best interest as well, because it was in the best interest of the health of the compan
by ratelimitsteve 1y ago
what's wild is that it could be argued that this was in the shareholders' best interest as well, because it was in the best interest of the health of the company, but somehow that doesn't satisfy a "fiduciary duty"
When someone tells you "my hands are tied" it's always worth asking whether they made the rope
- deaux 1y ago> When someone tells you "my hands are tied" it's always worth asking whether they made the rope It's not worth asking, as they're lying and they know it. It does not mean every decision made has to be to maximize shareholder wealth. As you're pointing out, even if incorrectly interpreted as such, any decision could be justified as doing so besides outrageous cases of intentionally tanking the company. This, in turn, is why no business gets prosecuted over this either.