3 ms·
WOuldn't proof of that be some grounds for breach of fiduciary duty?
by eugenekolo 5mo ago
WOuldn't proof of that be some grounds for breach of fiduciary duty?
- nradov 5mo agoNope. There is really no case law to support such a legal theory.
- jvanderbot 5mo agoDunno - is protecting yourself from high-profile criticism by doing whatever you want with assets you 100% own and are under no contractual obligation to share ... also in fiduciary duty?
- minimaxir 5mo agoIt is not illegal to be petty during business negotiations.
- tptacek 5mo agoNo. People have weird beliefs about what fiduciary duty means. It does not mean that companies are required at all intervals to maximize revenue or profit.
- jasonfarnon 5mo agoYou must not have spent much time looking at derivative lawsuits if you think this is weird. Anyway if ABC could convincingly classify this as a business decision, e.g., a question of the maintaining goodwill, maybe they're OK. If this came down to some exec feeling personally insulted, like the quote hints, a classic breach of fiduciary duty.
- 8note 5mo agothe easy argument otherwise would be that if they sold the IP, they wouldnt be able to revive it in the future, and also they would have nate silver as a competitor in the space
- School-Cotton 5mo agoWhy? Even if the common myth that public company executives must maximize profits at all costs were true, it's easy to construct a plausible explanation for why one might believe in good faith that destroying 538 rather than selling it is the best strategy to maximize profits. For example, because they think the profit they'd lose from 538 competing with their own politics offerings outweighs the amount Silver would pay for it.
- opello 5mo agoIsn't the checkers level move to make 539 and call it a day? Sure, it's no longer about electors but ... checkers. ... and to think I thought I was being clever. I see this has been suggested already.