3 ms·
>Quite often a senior leadership issue because backing stuff up results in $$$ spent, which makes shareholders unhappy. This is true. The latter half of your
by rjbwork 10d ago
>Quite often a senior leadership issue because backing stuff up results in $$$ spent, which makes shareholders unhappy.
This is true. The latter half of your comment is not. At best they have a duty to shareholders. But your assertion would mean every time a company posted a loss and the price went down the execs would be in legal trouble, which is nonsense.
- datadrivenangel 10d agoShareholder nuisance lawsuits can happen basically any time the stock goes down... or doesn't go up enough, and often companies will settle instead of the expensive fighting...
- SlightlyLeftPad 10d agoThere are grounds legally if shareholders can prove that the "long-term risk reduction" argument is a lie, they can sue under the Duty of Loyalty. In reality, yes, this amounts nuisance lawsuits, large settlements and disruption at the board level. In practice, this and the executive pay structures almost always incentivizes short-term decisions and these risks become problems “for the next person.”
- nixon_why69 9d agoThis is Matt Levine's theory of "everything is securities fraud". Something bad happens, stock goes down, angry shareholders sue because they should have been told the bad thing would happen and the stock would go down.
- jasonkhanlar 9d agoShareholders? Hmmmm... https://secform4.com/insider-trading/1018724.htm https://secform4.com/insider-trading/1018724.htm + https://i.imgur.com/tMBfGee.png https://i.imgur.com/tMBfGee.png = ? Cue security entitlements, e.g. https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/69-2025/testimony/SJUD-2364-20250211-36358-F-ENGET_MARK.pdf https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/69-2025/testimony/SJUD-2364-202...
- deleted 9d ago[deleted]