Re:Feds may target Google's Chrome browser for breakup
by CydeWeys on Monday October 12, 2020 @09:22AM
(#24754090)
I'm more referring to what the shareholders will do if the company is clearly not acting in the interests of actually making them money, but rather, cozying up to an now-unrelated company in a way that leaves lots of potential money on the table for no reason.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Feds may target Google's Chrome browser for breakup
by vonmoltke on Monday October 12, 2020 @10:08AM
(#24754453)
> I'm more referring to what the shareholders will do if the company is clearly not acting in the interests of actually making them money
That's fine, but "fiduciary duty" is a specific legal concept and you are misusing it. Making shareholders angry enough to vote you off the board is not the same thing.
Also, it's worth noting that institutional investors often rubber-stamp the board's recommendations in shareholder votes. One side effect of the rise of passive funds is that there is less shareholder opposition to board moves nowadays.