> Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts.

No sir, it was you who were confused - you brought them up here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46186549

> > There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders

> No, there isn't. The whole point of Revlon duties is that they trigger "in certain limited circumstances indicating that the 'sale' or 'break-up' of the company is inevitable" [1]. Outside those conditions, "the singular responsibility of the board" is not "to maximize immediate stockholder value by securing the highest price available."

I'll leave it up to you to recontextualize with the remainder of that thread if you want to continue discussing.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> you brought them up here

Within that context, what's confusing you? And where did I argue that "quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?"

Revlon duties are a specialised duty that apply in certain circumstances. They don't in others. The other situation is what we were talking about; herego, those special duties don't apply to the other situation, which is part of the general situation. It's an old piece of rhetoric [1].

If you're consistently getting downvoted in a thread, and the other side getting upvoted, try re-reading it instead of presuming sanctity. Especially if you haven't worked in a field, are mixing up terminal and are e.g. citing legal argument about a private company to make arguments about a public one (Ford).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule...

	▲	youarentrightjr 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> If you're consistently getting downvoted in a thread, and the other side getting upvoted, try re-reading it instead of presuming sanctity. Lol, what a humble take. We all know in this VC owned forum that only truth is upvoted, and lies downvoted, especially on topics like private equity. > Revlon duties are a specialised duty that apply in certain circumstances. They don't in others. The other situation is what we were talking about Again you're operating insincerely, because as I told you last time, and this time, Revlon does not relate to what I'm referring to. I even quoted you Dodge v Ford Motor Co as a jump off point for your education, which you refused to acknowledge due to it being "from over 100 years ago". Anyways I'm curious if you'll share your background, and why you're consistently in these discussions about private equity, rabidly playing defense?