Are there any examples of a CEO choosing country over company in the modern USA?

Not defending Zuck here, would just like to read about that if possible.

Would be against the law right? You are required to maximize stockholder value

> You are required to maximize stockholder value

This is legal fiction that has no bearing in the kinds of subjects that it often gets brought up in. Simply put, those responsible for a company (e.g. officers of a corporation) have a fiduciary duty towards its owners (e.g. the shareholders), and it means that the owners would have legal recourse against the officers if they were provably pissing money away on things that don't benefit the company at all.

That latter part is a high bar and critically does not mean that they are, for example, legally required to prioritize quarterly profits over the long-term success of the company or to pay employees as little as possible, as is often mentioned. It just means that officers must take action that furthers the interests of the company in the way that they prudently and reasonably see fit.

> legally required to prioritize quarterly profits over the long-term success of the company or to pay employees as little as possible, as is often mentioned.

Obviously this isn't a legal requirement, but pretty much every CEO would be out of a job if they choose country over company. Shareholders are generally not interested in furthering national geopolitics.

> Shareholders are generally not interested in furthering national geopolitics.

I don't think that's true. Look at all the corporate action about Ukraine for an example of interest in geopolitics - lots of donations, public statements, etc. And then there's companies actually in Ukraine, or next door - when politics gets unstable enough, contributing to the stability/security of the country over the short term of the company looks like the right move. Evaluating when that point is reached is probably about as contentious as any other decision in politics.

This is a popular deflection of responsibility that is, in fact, entirely false.

You are required to abide by shareholder decisions at official meetings, and generally not act against shareholder interests, but there is absolutely no law stating that you must act to maximize shareholder value. (And it's a damn good thing that's the case; things are bad enough as it is.)

How does this fictional canard stop being posted to HN?

I think it's good if it gets posted and debunked as often as possible to maximize the knowledge that it is false

You're required to put forth a good faith effort to act in the shareholders interests, but no court would say choosing country over company breaks that law. The CEO would certainly be fired though, so it still won't happen.

If the majority of Facebook's shareholders wanted to liquidate the company and blow the proceeds hosting the biggest ice cream party in the world the executives are supposed to make that happen.

It's not about producing profits it's about doing what the shareholders want.

Mike Lindell, arguably. He lost a ton of business by injecting himself into politics and doing what he thought was putting his country first.

Lindell just wanted to sell to gullible Trunp fans and make himself a celebrity and power broker for a fascist. The good of the country wasn't a factor.

I'd be interested in the stats, but my perception is that he (and his products) are much more well-known now than before. I always saw his foray into politics as a very aggressive niching strategy. He saw Trump's momentum and hitched his wagon.

He might have lost Costco and their low margins, but he picked up an army of high-margin D2C sympathizers who have been shown to be generous with their money (if the cause is right).

He is not perfect but the only person I can think of is Sal Khan of khanacademy. His content is completely free and provides free prep for SAT and other subjects.

Quest CEO refused to spy on Americans. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished...