News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private by nonethewiser on Thursday April 14, 2022 @03:45PM (#31032320)
I think you have it backwards. Twitter has always struggled, usually losing money, and Musk is coming in with a cash offer. He doesn't need to change anything for this to be a financial relief to shareholders. Not to mention shareholders will no longer have an interest in the company, as it will become private. There really isn't any impetus to prove Twitter's future will be better (and better than what? bad?)
Re:Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private by hooande on Thursday April 14, 2022 @07:40PM (#31034910)
Say the board has a reason to believe that Twitter is going to double in value in the next two years. ie, they have a secret "Twitter Gold" product that they are certain will triple profits.

It would be a disservice to me, as an investor, if they sold the company at a value of $54/share knowing that it could easily be worth much more than that in the near future. As a shareholder, I hired this board specifically to make decisions with information that isn't public. I either trust them or I don't.

Re:Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private by Siira on Friday April 15, 2022 @04:33AM (#31037826)
> I either trust them or I don't.

“False dichotomy”

Re:Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private by belter on Thursday April 14, 2022 @04:01PM (#31032507)
That is the whole point of my argument. As a director, I am rejecting the offer because my fiduciary duty, it to veil for the future of the company, not the bank account of the shareholders :-)
Re:Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private by simonk on Thursday April 14, 2022 @09:13PM (#31035616)
The fiduciary duty is to the shareholders not the company.
Re:Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private by belter on Friday April 15, 2022 @06:15PM (#31046566)
In most countries it's not.

[1] "The court reviewed and affirmed the following principals:"

"...Directors do not, by virtue of their office, owe fiduciary duties to shareholders. Circumstances may arise in which duties are owed but only by way of exception. To achieve this, there here must be something unusual in the nature of the relationship. Special circumstances which “replicate the salient features of well-established categories of fiduciary relationships” must be present."

"...The mere fact that a director has access to the company’s affairs, or that their actions have potential to impact shareholders, does not, of itself, amount to “special circumstances“, or give rise to a special relationship. These are “inevitable” features of the relationship between directors and shareholders..."

"...The purchase of shares from a shareholder is not (on its own) sufficient to create a fiduciary duty. Even in a situation where a director is purchasing shares from a shareholder, the existence of such a duty depends on the existence of special circumstances..."

[1] https://www.morrlaw.com/commercial-law/director-shareholder-...