Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

To be predatory it has to be deceptive or complex in a way that leads people to misunderstand. This is not the case here. It is crystal clear that a non voting share gives the buyer no control over the company, and if he buyer accepts that then he should get no such control.



What's complex is the ownership structure of any company with multiple classes of shares, especially with different voting weightings.

Simple would be "1 share = 1 vote".

-----

What's deceptive is the conflict of interest he created for himself that makes it unclear whether or not he is actually fulfilling his fiduciary duty.

Clear and conflict-free would be renting from someone unrelated, and renting his building out to different company.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: