News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to... by tsimionescu on Friday April 15, 2022 @06:43PM (#31046835)
Yes, they don't have to maximize profits, but they also can't ignore profit to the benefit of other values they deem more important, per the very old but still in force Dodge v Ford.

As long as they are not egregiously and obviously acting against that goal, or taking decisions without deliberation, the law would favor them in any trial that only hinged on whether the price offered by Musk was better than the market. Basically the burden of proof to show that it could not have been a good business decision would lie with the plaintiff, and I very much doubt that you could build a solid case of that.

Re:Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to... by madhadron on Friday April 15, 2022 @07:25PM (#31047191)
I mean, saying "We are concerned about a hostile takeover attempt by a person who isn't allowed to be an officer of a public company anymore because he has show himself either unwilling or unable to be a fiduciary for stockholders, and we are trying to protect our stockholders from him" seems like a slam dunk in court.
Re:Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to... by tsimionescu on Friday April 15, 2022 @07:36PM (#31047278)
Musk is offering to buy out all stockholders, so if the sale goes through, he will be the sole owner of Twitter, and all current stock holders will receive cash.

On the other hand, the board can easily say "we don't beleive this deal offered by a person who isn't allowed to be a public officer of a company anymore will ever go through, either because he will retract it or because he will be unable to secure funding; and we beleive attempting the deal will hurt stock prices and profits for current shareholders" and then I agree, it would probably be a slam dunk in court.

Re:Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to... by tuckerman on Friday April 15, 2022 @07:13PM (#31047101)
I don't think Dodge v. Ford isn't a great case to cite here for two reasons: 1) I think the trend of accepting that corporations can exist for reasons other than to generate profit is a post-ww2 phenomenon and this case is from 1919 2) Perhaps more importantly, Dodge v. Ford was a case before the Michigan Supreme Court and, to my knowledge, has never been used in a case in Delaware.