Weird circumstance. Friend of a friend of a friend of a friend sort of thing. Apparently I was just autistic enough for him to be engaged because I kept asking questions and he kept answering them. I managed to stay mask on for the most part
Weird circumstance. Friend of a friend of a friend of a friend sort of thing. Apparently I was just autistic enough for him to be engaged because I kept asking questions and he kept answering them. I managed to stay mask on for the most part
I know people love to say this, but it's absolutely untrue, right? If your investors don't like your style isn't their main recourse basically limited to selling their shares?
There's some case law in the USA, not going to do any digging to find it, that basically states that the CEO's only responsibility is to be financially responsible to their shareholders/investors. So yeah, I'm pretty sure its true.
If a CEO were to make an intentional change in the business that negatively affected profits, the shareholders would have legal recourse to sue them at worst or fire them ASAP at best.
I assumed that it wouldn't be legal to be completely negligent, but I'm questioning the idea that you're required to be as depraved as possible.
I believe the case law is related to Henry Ford wanting to pay his workers more and the courts ruling he had a fiduciary responsibility to maximize his shareholders' return.
Do you have any links? That seems like a banger in any argument.
It's a little less clear cut, I guess, but still affirms the general principle that you're not allowed to use the resources of a publicly traded company to advance the common good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
:gold-communist:
Its the legal grey area that's miles wide...
It seems like it would be more about giving them cover when they do something, to make it harder to take legal action against capitalists that do something awful i.e. the tobacco industry people wouldn't be punished because they had a "legal responsibility".
It's not exactly true but kinda is. The CEO is told what to do by the shareholders and if they don't do it then the CEO is removed. And the shareholders always every single time demand more profits for themselves. So the CEO has to get more profits or else he's fired.
At the end of the day it is the shareholders who are demanding more profit instead of running the company in an environmentally healthy way.
The whole shareholder system is set up to force the companies to ruthlessly go for profit and nothing else