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

The answer to the puzzle is that the rule about fiduciary duty really is only relevant to who the beneficiaries are of financial transactions; it pretty much does not have anything to say about regular business decisions. No doubt some shareholders contacted their lawyers and were gently dissuaded by a legal reality check.



Shareholders did sue, and the threat of the lawsuit meant the board had to devote a lot of energy towards the Microsoft acquisition offer, which was unfortunately why the offer was a win-win for Microsoft.


I checked, and not only did they sue but they reached a settlement, in Delaware of all places, the state least friendly to these kinds of claims.

But the settlement had nothing to do with Yahoo failing to reach an agreement with Microsoft; it was to weaken a poison pill Yahoo had put into place that meant employees would get expensive severances in the event of a takeover. This kind of financial measure is bread-and-butter for corporate fiduciary law, and it doesn't contradict what I said.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/yahoo-settles-shareholder-suit...


In fairness, that was the legal claim that they thought had the best chance of succeeding. That option for a poison pill had been in the arsenal pretty much since the company was formed. They sued because Yahoo failed to accept the agreement.




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

Search: