• originalfrozenbanana
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Not that they are blameless - far from it - but they had a fiduciary responsibility to pursue the deal because it was good for their shareholders

      • jaycifer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 minutes ago

        It’s a myth so widely pushed and accepted over the decades that just calling it a myth won’t be accepted as an argument against it at this point.

        What I think is interesting is that this sense of fiduciary duty can be used by a company to do whatever they want. Mass layoffs are part of a fiduciary duty to cut costs. Mass hirings are part of a fiduciary duty to expand operations for growth. At this point it’s less a myth and more an excuse for doing whatever.

      • originalfrozenbanana
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        No, I don’t think that’s true. Twitters board had to sue for specific performance because Musk backed out of a formal offer in the late stages for fabricated reasons. It’s not like it was “sue musk or go to jail” but their job as board members comes with a fiduciary obligation, and musk was paying 38% over the share price. Twitter is FAR from blameless but sueing musk isn’t a failing https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/14/twitter-vs-musk-the-complaint/

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s not what I said. I said the “Fiduciary duty to make profit” that keeps being brought up whenever corpos act like sociopaths, is a myth.