News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by djcapelis on Saturday April 02, 2016 @04:57PM (#11413410)
Isn't that true for all forms of investment? Including VC?
Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by erikpukinskis on Saturday April 02, 2016 @05:55PM (#11413675)
To some extent, yes. But if the company is private, a minority shareholder can only sue a majority holder under the terms of the sale. In a public company they can sue under the terms of the SEC. If the company is private, the majority shareholder can act against financial interests if they like.

Public companies are trying to box out specific areas where they might legally do that: C-corps, mission-based exemptions during public sale, etc

But—and this is full on opinion now—I suspect when the chips are down, the courts will rule that Google can't just burn a pile of value because "we like Science" or somesuch thing. They'll get away with it as long as the pile of money is growing. And hopefully that's "forever". But maybe forever isn't as long as we think it is. The world is changing. Snapchat cometh.

Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by Animats on Saturday April 02, 2016 @10:51PM (#11414691)
I suspect when the chips are down, the courts will rule that Google can't just burn a pile of value because "we like Science" or some such thing.

That's when stockholders file lawsuits alleging violation of director fiduciary responsibility. This can happen with a startup if the management proposes a funding round that's a significant lose for existing shareholders. The directors have the obligation to act in the best interest of the stockholders, not the management.

It also comes up when a company has assets and is losing money, and the stockholders want to liquidate and get some money out, while management wants to burn all the cash out to the bitter end.