"We knowingly bought into a scheme where one man - the one we're suing - has 51% of the voting power on all corporate affairs. We think he screwed up and owes us money. Can you help us?" - the shareholders to the Delaware CoC, in effect.
Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American.
Except that there are limits on fiduciary duty. It should not be confused for a right to earn money. Losing money on a bad investment is part of the game. The duty that they have is to carry out the terms of the investment prospectus and nothing more.
Shareholders have the right to not get lied to by executives. The SEC forces companies to put lots of stuff into their annual reports, giving companies lots of opportunities to lie to shareholders. Companies basically write "we aren't doing anything morally ambiguous" in their annual reports, almost always lying when they do so.
Except that intentionally making bad investments fully knowing that they are bad investments is not something you can put aside as just “bad investments you lost money on”. This is absolutely something the board needs to hold the executive team accountable for and is part of their fiduciary duty.
I bet the chairman, Mark Zuckerberg, is going to steer the board to get right on with punishing the CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for his careless administration of the company.
This. I think the executives have an obligation to state their plans so investors can decide if they want to back it. But if making top dollar is a requirement then lots of companies should liquidate and invest in other companies with higher returns or something.
> The company, board of directors still owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. Having 51% of voting control doesn't change that.
Not OP but they were very confident in what they wrote. I'd assume they'd be able to provide evidence. Just because it's the law doesn't mean we're not gonna get asked for evidence. Maybe we should be more careful with our claims then.
Essentially, yes, it's to increase stock value, but generally the courts are to defer to executives' judgment on such decisions as long as the executive is acting in good faith. So in practice you don't have to, like, exploit people or anything as long as you say not exploiting people is good for the long-term health of the company's good will or something.
> The trial, set to begin Wednesday in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, aims to hold Zuckerberg, former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg and other former executives personally liable for the billions the company spent to resolve allegations that it failed to safeguard user data.
The reply I answered mentioned the fiduciary duty to all shareholders, but, in my limited understanding of the term, based on how I see the term used, this means the company has an obligation to make moneis for the shareholders. Which Meta does, quite well.
Obviously, people can be dissatisfied about anything, but I'm not sure Meta is failing the "fiduciary duty" aspect.
You can't tell your investors that you are going to make money building a farm, and then instead take their money and build houses with it. Even if the end result is you made more money building houses than you ever would have building a farm, you can't lie about your plans for the money. Consider an investor might already be heavily invested in building houses, and they want to diversify their portfolio by by investing in something that builds farms.
You are getting down voted because all the promises FB/META made to investors are available online and they never lied about how they are going to make moneys.
Breach of fiduciary duty is already extremely hard to prove when share prices are down. Mark has the added benefit of the doubt that arises from the fact that his incentives are fundamentally aligned with the company's incentives, given how much of his wealth is tied up in those shares.
I have worked with asset managers, employees come from all around the world and vary in background. Yes there will be a weighting to the more privileged kids but most of the jobs don't make big bonuses. That's just the Sales leads and funds managers.
But it's irrelevant. As the institutional investors who invest are doing so for their underlying investors e.g. Pension Funds.
The people suing, if win, will report higher results and their bonuses will be higher but so will the underlying investors.
> Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American.
So? What's your point? We should root for Zuckerberg because the people who are suing him are rich? Zuckerberg is an order of magnitude worse in all those resentment metrics you list than the people who are suing him.
My point is that everyone involved is awful and that none of this should happen in a remotely sane society. What kind of corporate governance model allows for a dictatorship? Why aren't the shareholders just selling if they think they were wronged the better part of a decade ago?
Because we're insane.
Maybe they're filing the suit out of the fiduciary duty to their fund members. Worst-case scenario, it goes nowhere. Best-case scenario, they get money out of Meta. Now, they're doing this off the backs of the people of Delaware, but whatever.
Not true. These are people who are likely responsible for global economic meltdowns and then asking for handouts (anyone remember 2008). Zuck isn’t making anyone’s life harder without them signing into his platforms. Just stay off of them if you don’t like zuck.
But you can’t stay off the financial system. So, creepy as zuck maybe, I think he is impact for evil is a whole lot less.
It was a comment revealing his attitude towards what would soon become his customers in a globally-impactful business over which he has sole control. It’s more relevant than ever today.
In most cases those comments weren’t about the service they still running at 40. His comment was also him self-reporting that he shouldn’t be trusted with user data, when his whole business revolves around user data. If it was some off color joke in poor taste, I wouldn’t care so much.
He's an entirely different person now. There is no one under the age of 45 on the planet who would say "you know, yeah, I'm fundamentally the same person I was 22 years ago."
I'm not saying he's a better person. Just different. Judge him by what he says and does now, which is no better.
You can be an asshole at 22 and still be an asshole at 45. You might be an asshole in different ways, but an asshole is still an asshole. As I'm often reminded of myself
The things Donald Trump says are sufficiently untethered from reality that whether a given statement is truth or lie could be used as a pseudorandom number generator, so I don't know if that statement counts for or against my claim.
I don't disagree with your point, but nothing is absolute. In this case, he's essentially done a tremendously good job of showing us since then that, no, we can't trust him. He's more than lived up to his words.
Is there any proof that he said that, apart the movie? I'm not arguing he didn't, but the only place I've found to support that is the movie. I didn't try very hard either...
> "We're excited that in the next couple months we will be able to share our first product, which will include a significant open source component and be useful for researchers and startups developing custom model," CEO Murati said in a post, opens new tab on the X social media platform.
And there will be no real consequences because all of the Republicans support this, or accept it as a cost of doing business to get tax cuts for the rich.
Good idea! The AC in my Nissan Leaf uses about 3kw so I assume it'd be about the same in my Corsa. However the Corsa disables auto-start stop and keeps the engine idling whenever the AC is on, negating any fuel savings!
That project (a local one to me; was created the next county over in the KC metro) put a lot of food on my table and made a lot of value for my business partners. Happy birthday!
Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American.
reply