"breach of fiduciary duty" is a very real thing. (29 USC § 1109 specifically) In this case it has nothing to do with the link you posted. He means the contract that Twitter signed with the banks probably has language that says they will attempt to get the best possible price for the shares. The resulting pop shows that they did not do that.
He means the contract that Twitter signed with the banks probably has language that says they will attempt to get the best possible price for the shares. The resulting pop shows that they did not do that.
Not true. If I'm selling 1 share and see $40, I can probably get $40 for that share. If I'm selling 1M shares it is a lot harder to get $40 for every single one. If I'm selling ~550M shares with zero existing market then getting that $40 is nearly impossible. Twitter worked out a guaranteed ~$26/share which is pretty good. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush and all that.
No, it doesn't. It would only be a breach of fiduciary duty if the underwriters knew they could price the stock higher, but intentionally decided not to. Something tells me they were expecting a pop, but not quite this significant.
Isn't 29 USC § 1109 about corporate benefit plans? What does that have to do with general Director breaches of fiduciary duty (which is covered under state level business corporate law...)
Wow, it totally is. It's the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. GP are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?
That's not a real thing.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...