Drone_Fragger posted:

I’m leaving my current job in about 2 weeks because fundamentally all the shareholders care about is what return on investment they’ll get so things like “designing a good solution for the customer” and “Customer service” go straight out the window in favour of things like “designing the shittiest tool that sales can sell for the highest possible markup”

ZombieLenin posted:

There is literally a legal requirement in the United States for publicly traded companies to maximize the the profit to the share holders.

Yet another reason capitalism is dumb.

ZombieLenin posted:

Yet another reason capitalism is dumb.

evilweasel posted:

there's not

ZombieLenin posted:

There is. While recently case law has relaxed this a company can still get ebayed. What I am essentially digesting to a sound bite is that corporations in the United States have a legally binding fiduciary duty to investors to maximize the value of the company.

evilweasel posted:

there's not. i literally litigate fiduciary duty cases for a living. there is no fiduciary duty to "maximize profits". whatever you think that case stands for, it's not what it actually stands for.

to briefly discuss, what you might be mangling is the duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. what that means, in practice, is a ban on acting in your own interests at the expense of the company - i.e. causing the company to enter into a one-sided contract with a separate company you control.

there is a poo poo-ton of law on what's called the "business judgment rule" which is basically courts in various states in the United States ruling that they have no interest whatsoever in litigating the wisdom of business decisions, so provided that there's not a conflict of interest (i.e., being on both sides of the transaction) the court's going to throw out the lawsuit as long as the process to get to the decision was somewhere in the vague vicinity of reasonable.

if a company makes decision X, and you think the other decision (not-X) would have maximized value and you sue over it (and only that), you will lose no matter how strong a case you make that not-X is a better business decision, because courts have no interest whatsoever in getting business decisions punted to them.

there is a theoretical requirement that directors and officers act in the "best interests of the corporation" (this is not a requirement of the corporation itself) but in practice it comes down to (a) no self-dealing and (b) officers (but not directors, who are all protected from liability from these sort of claims in the articles of incorporation of virtually every corporation and certainly every publicly traded corporation) can be sued for gross negligence in their business decisions. no court in the united states is going to pay any attention to you litigating the wisdom of a business decision unless you can show self-dealing or gross negligence (and gross negligence in the process used to make the decision, not just that the end decision was bad).

FAT32 SHAMER posted:

he could also be referring to the common c-level trope of "we have a duty to our stockholders" that they always drop when theyre about to do something that labour isnt going to like to make it sound like theyre legally obligated to lay off thousands of people but really theyre just as keen as the stockholders to make $0.10 more

evilweasel posted:

there's not. i literally litigate fiduciary duty cases for a living. there is no fiduciary duty to "maximize profits". whatever you think that case stands for, it's not what it actually stands for.

to briefly discuss, what you might be mangling is the duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. what that means, in practice, is a ban on acting in your own interests at the expense of the company - i.e. causing the company to enter into a one-sided contract with a separate company you control.

there is a poo poo-ton of law on what's called the "business judgment rule" which is basically courts in various states in the United States ruling that they have no interest whatsoever in litigating the wisdom of business decisions, so provided that there's not a conflict of interest (i.e., being on both sides of the transaction) the court's going to throw out the lawsuit as long as the process to get to the decision was somewhere in the vague vicinity of reasonable.

if a company makes decision X, and you think the other decision (not-X) would have maximized value and you sue over it (and only that), you will lose no matter how strong a case you make that not-X is a better business decision, because courts have no interest whatsoever in getting business decisions punted to them.

there is a theoretical requirement that directors and officers act in the "best interests of the corporation" (this is not a requirement of the corporation itself) but in practice it comes down to (a) no self-dealing and (b) officers (but not directors, who are all protected from liability from these sort of claims in the articles of incorporation of virtually every corporation and certainly every publicly traded corporation) can be sued for gross negligence in their business decisions. no court in the united states is going to pay any attention to you litigating the wisdom of a business decision unless you can show self-dealing or gross negligence (and gross negligence in the process used to make the decision, not just that the end decision was bad).

GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:

Nope

Warmachine posted:

evilweasel posted:

there's not. i literally litigate fiduciary duty cases for a living. there is no fiduciary duty to "maximize profits". whatever you think that case stands for, it's not what it actually stands for.

to briefly discuss, what you might be mangling is the duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. what that means, in practice, is a ban on acting in your own interests at the expense of the company - i.e. causing the company to enter into a one-sided contract with a separate company you control.

there is a poo poo-ton of law on what's called the "business judgment rule" which is basically courts in various states in the United States ruling that they have no interest whatsoever in litigating the wisdom of business decisions, so provided that there's not a conflict of interest (i.e., being on both sides of the transaction) the court's going to throw out the lawsuit as long as the process to get to the decision was somewhere in the vague vicinity of reasonable.

if a company makes decision X, and you think the other decision (not-X) would have maximized value and you sue over it (and only that), you will lose no matter how strong a case you make that not-X is a better business decision, because courts have no interest whatsoever in getting business decisions punted to them.

there is a theoretical requirement that directors and officers act in the "best interests of the corporation" (this is not a requirement of the corporation itself) but in practice it comes down to (a) no self-dealing and (b) officers (but not directors, who are all protected from liability from these sort of claims in the articles of incorporation of virtually every corporation and certainly every publicly traded corporation) can be sued for gross negligence in their business decisions. no court in the united states is going to pay any attention to you litigating the wisdom of a business decision unless you can show self-dealing or gross negligence (and gross negligence in the process used to make the decision, not just that the end decision was bad).

FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

do you mean cspam cause weasel is much more dnd

Saul Kain posted:

Stop stop. My lawyer boner is painfully erect.

FAT32 SHAMER posted:

didnt weasel get banned in dnd recently

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

Objection, your honor...

Alchenar posted:

dnd has the odd person who knows something but the nature of the forum is a tidalwave of ignorance pushing them towards the door.

Alchenar posted:

It is enjoyable when someone steps out of the D&D echochamber and runs headlong into someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Rutibex posted:

I'm surprised a lawyer has the time to play MMOs

1001 Arabian dicks posted:

as is the inevitable fate of all libcucks

tikka_zamayid posted:

I didn't even read farther up for context, trying to catch up and this made me spew tea through my nose...

tikka_zamayid posted:

I didn't even read farther up for context, trying to catch up and this made me spew tea through my nose...

FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

shut up idiot

FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

i wasnt suggesting dnd posters knew anything, I was saying dnd is not as hyper woke always online as cspam

GeneticWeapon posted:

Do people really rat in Titans now? It's hard for me to comprehend.

GeneticWeapon posted:

Do people really rat in Titans now? It's hard for me to comprehend.

evilweasel posted:

initially he seemed to be getting at an idea that's gotten into a lot of people's heads somehow that a corporation has a duty to maximize short-term profits - i.e. that investing today for more profits tomorrow is legally banned. which is an utterly bonkers thing to think is illegal.

but yeah what the law is, and what CEOs looking for maximizing their pay package in the next year like to claim it is, are two very different things

Rutibex posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc4dxh0gEPw

Micromancer posted:

I was planning on getting a Rag as my second titan

GeneticWeapon posted:

Oh lawdy why would anyone need 2 Titans haha

Micromancer posted:

Because 50b for a second cannon seems more reasonable than jumping the first one to beacons to get stuff back where it was

GeneticWeapon posted:

Is owning a Titan fun? Please tell me that it is. I literally knew gently caress all about Titans when we were fight BoB, and when Shrike DD'd us the first time, I figured that would be the funnest thing ever to be able to do. One minute I was in my rail Mega, and the next I was in my pod. It was such a new and hilarious experience.