>>95509738
>actually mother fucking LAW in the USA
>company must act in a way that benefits shareholders over everyone else
Yes and no. Dodge v Ford Motor Co requires that a for-profit company continues to operate in a manner intended to generate profits and not knowingly act in a manner intended to devalue shareholders' investments. Ford had been planning to lower prices and increase wages specifically to cut the dividend paid to investors, most notably the Dodge brothers, because he wanted to starve them of capital. The court ruled that, as the investors had given him money with the good-faith expectation that he would use that money to generate a return on their investment, he couldn't intentionally stiff them. There was an obiter dictum to the effect that a company's primary concern should be the profits of its shareholders, but that was non-binding.

However, even if a company can't intentionally act in a manner solely intended to reduce its profitability, that doesn't translate to a forced requirement to maximize profitability, nor does it require the prioritization of short-term profitability over long-term sustainability. That trend isn't the result of case law, but the direct consequence of shareholders voting for those decisions. It isn't that company officers are bound by law to obey the whims of shareholders, it's that shareholders are the ones that vote them into office and they can vote them right out.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/tg/

Thread:

https://screenrant.com/jeremy-crawford-chris-perkins-leaving-dnd-interview/Both Jeremy Crawford (of stupid ruling fame) and Chris Perkins are…

https://screenrant.com/jeremy-crawford-chris-perkins-leaving-dnd-interview/
Both Jeremy Crawford (of stupid ruling fame) and Chris Perkins are…