That’s not the case at all, though it’s very often believed to be and stated as such on here and Reddit.
Not that they are blameless - far from it - but they had a fiduciary responsibility to pursue the deal because it was good for their shareholders
tyler@programming.dev 1 day ago
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
“Fiduciary duty to get profit” is a libertarian myth. It has no legal basis.
jaycifer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s a myth so widely pushed and accepted over the decades that just calling it a myth won’t be accepted as an argument against it at this point.
What I think is interesting is that this sense of fiduciary duty can be used by a company to do whatever they want. Mass layoffs are part of a fiduciary duty to cut costs. Mass hirings are part of a fiduciary duty to expand operations for growth. At this point it’s less a myth and more an excuse for doing whatever.
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 day ago
No, I don’t think that’s true. Twitters board had to sue for specific performance because Musk backed out of a formal offer in the late stages for fabricated reasons. It’s not like it was “sue musk or go to jail” but their job as board members comes with a fiduciary obligation, and musk was paying 38% over the share price. Twitter is FAR from blameless but sueing musk isn’t a failing …harvard.edu/…/twitter-vs-musk-the-complaint/
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
That’s not what I said. I said the “Fiduciary duty to make profit” that keeps being brought up whenever corpos act like sociopaths, is a myth.
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Ok? But that’s not what the Twitter board claimed. I agree with your premise but that isn’t what happened here.