| |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm still not seeing any mechanism by which they could force him to sell, though. Even if the board fired him and he couldn't replace the board right away due to the corporate constitution, how are they going to force him to sell his shares if he doesn't want to? | | |
| ▲ | Nemi 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Shareholders of companies are "along for the ride" and simply participate in the decisions of the board. In theory if they fired Zuck and appointed a interim CEO and directed that the company get sold, then it could have happened and Zuck would just be allocated his percentage of the value paid by Yahoo. In practice I would guess there would be lawsuits filed immediately to hold up any such activity until he had time to exert control of the board, but it would have been interesting nonetheless. | | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 3 days ago | parent [-] | | So you're saying that in principle, the board could have forced Zuckerberg to sell his shares even if he didn't want to? It seems like it should be wildly illegal to forcibly deprive someone of their property like that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | alberth 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. Isn’t the Board supposed to act in the best interest of the shareholders? And if one person holds a majority of shares, wouldn’t that mean the Board is effectively acting based on that individual’s direction? | | |
| ▲ | shash 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The board is supposed to act in the interest of _all_ shareholders, not just majority or controlling. Meaning, a group of minority shareholders could sue for discrimination as happened at Tesla recently. Also, I’m not sure of the ownership structure, but he may own 57% of voting stock but a minority of non voting stock, and the non-voting members may have certain rights irrespective of voting rights. I’d be shocked if they didn’t negotiate some kind of escape hatch. | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why have a board then? Just let the shareholders vote directly on corporate decisions. | | |
| ▲ | chistev 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yea, I'm really confused on this. Someone who understands it well should explain please. Like the Astronomer CEO that was forced to resign, could the sane thing happen to Zuckerberg in similar circumstances since he has majority share? What If it was something entirely different, could they force him out? I don't understand it. | | |
| ▲ | ksec 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Wondering the same, would love if someone could explain it. Hypothetically if Founder / CEO have 100% voting rights and all current public shares have non-voting right, the board could still fire the CEO? i.e The only way to prevent this from happening would be to stay private? |
|
|
|
|
