Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Occupy Newt's Brain"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=TheManWithAUsername] That's not what the BJ rule says. That's just a burden of proof rule, basically. It makes it harder to prove that a director breached, but it doesn't change the fundamental duty. The BJ rule makes it harder to show that an action apparently against the shareholder's financial interest in fact was, but if a director announces that he took an action he knew to be against the corporation's financial interest, he admits his breach of fiduciary duty. Do you contend that a director can, within the law, intentionally sacrifice the shareholders' financial interests to some other cause and not be liable? (Note that this is not the same as a short-term sacrifice, e.g. donating to charity in the interest of PR.) [/quote] I suppose that depends on what you mean by "intentionally sacrifice." As I myself said, a director can't just give shareholders' money away to some cause they think is more worthy. (Can't we all agree that is a pretty good rule?) Could a director say "despite the fact that there is a positive expected return to selling a defective product because the likely profit outweighs the likely adverse tort judgments, we are not going to sell defective products because it is just plain wrong" without running afoul of any principle of corporate law? Absolutely, as far as I know -- feel free to cite something to the contrary, if you think I'm wrong. In the real world, of course, there are difficult cases where the issues are shades of grey. Corporate directors obviously have a duty to act in their shareholders' financial interest, but not, as far as I know, a duty to push that principle to the absolute limit without any consideration of morality or social impact. They have far more discretion than that. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics