Yes, I'm aware. Also, don't care.Are you aware that corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize the money the investors make? If they fail in that duty, they can be sued.
Yes, I'm aware. Also, don't care.Are you aware that corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize the money the investors make? If they fail in that duty, they can be sued.
You might not(and I personally don't), but the investors and corporations have to.Yes, I'm aware. Also, don't care.
The duty isn't to just maximize the short term profits though, is it?Are you aware that corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize the money the investors make? If they fail in that duty, they can be sued.
Okay.You might not(and I personally don't), but the investors and corporations have to.
According to CNBC who actually discussed this when the news first hit WOTC would spike almost immediately, which can cause the people who wanted it to split to dump their shares at the peak. This can crash the company leaving it far worse than it was but the investors walk away with loads of cash.
Welcome to why investors and corporations make ready-made villains in just about everythingYou might not(and I personally don't), but the investors and corporations have to.
Actually its totally about that. At least according to these activist investors.Well...thisnis about the profits, not that.
D&D is doing OK, but Magic is printing money at an increasingly accelerating rate. Turns out it wasn't a fad?
So, the point being missed here is, the corporation is responsible to maximize value for investors...including people who buy the stock. A rash pump and dump scheme, like these guys want, is contrary to maximizing value for all investors.Are you aware that corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize the money the investors make? If they fail in that duty, they can be sued.
Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.Are you aware that corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize the money the investors make? If they fail in that duty, they can be sued.
Bah, what would they know about it? They're probably still running a mono-black Shadow deck and wondering why everyone sideboards blue to make dupes.So saith the U.S. Supreme Court (in those exact words, in 2014).
What was the vote on that? If it was close, there's a very good chance that this Supreme Court would say something different.Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.
So saith the U.S. Supreme Court (in those exact words, in 2014).
As a reminder. The TV and movie projects are part of eOnefuture TV & movie projects
In this case, the break on the voting doesn't matter, because the issue of corporate prioritization of profit was not the issue that the court was deciding. It was a supporting argument in the body of an opinion. There were dissenting opinions, but they weren't dissenting on that particular point.What was the vote on that? If it was close, there's a very good chance that this Supreme Court would say something different.
Which are in-house, which means under control of the corporation...which will all feed into each other.As a reminder. The TV and movie projects are part of eOne
If it wasn't at issue, then this decision didn't decide it, correct? That means that the last time it came up, probably pre-modern corporate law, is what currently prevails. And the current court make-up seems unlikely to change that.In this case, the break on the voting doesn't matter, because the issue of corporate prioritization of profit was not the issue that the court was deciding. It was a supporting argument in the body of an opinion. There were dissenting opinions, but they weren't dissenting on that particular point.
It wasn't directly at issue, but with it being in a SCOTUS decision, it can certainly be used in subsequent court cases. If this is the case I think it is, Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the conservatives aren't likely to change it. The decision was written by Alito and joined by all of the conservative justices at the time.If it wasn't at issue, then this decision didn't decide it, correct? That means that the last time it came up, probably pre-modern corporate law, is what currently prevails. And the current court make-up seems unlikely to change that.