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?