• jaycifer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 minutes 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours 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 https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/14/twitter-vs-musk-the-complaint/

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours 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.