Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[mongers]

Why is he so into Danish/Norwegian vowels?

Sideræl is not something a sane Norwegian would name their daughter. In Norwegian it means something of low quality that's been tossed aside.

 

Did no one point this out to him??

What if a Norwegian named their son 'Trashcan' would it be picked up before the christening?

[HVC]

Lol he lost the poll so changed the rules

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/20/elon-musk-breaks-silence-after-10-million-twitter-users-vote-for-him-to-step-down

[OttoVonBismarck]

It looks like in spite of changing the rules he is now saying he "plans to look" for a CEO for Twitter.

[HVC]

It looks like in spite of changing the rules he is now saying he "plans to look" for a CEO for Twitter.

Saudis getting rowdy? Or he's afraid he might lose control of tesla?

[DGuller]

Probably both.  I'm sure the Saudis had sinister reasons to finance Musk, but they probably didn't sign up for this shitshow.  Tesla investors most certainly didn't sign up for this.

[viper37]

Maybe this is a Canadian-only thing, but I could have sworn that when there's a controlling shareholder, there's a requirement that there needs to be a "majority of the minority" vote in favour.

No, not legally.  A corporation could have specific statutes for this though.

No, I'm positive of it.

Lets say you're a 51% shareholder of company A.  You make a buyout offer of Company A by Company B, which you also control.

In Canada at least you must get the approval of a majority of the 49% shareholders of Company A.

What I can't recall is if that is right there in statues (the various Business Corporation Acts), or it if has just developed through caselaw as being the way to ensure you've met your fiduciary responsibilities.

Oh, that.  I do not know for that specific a case.  You could certainly be right.

I thought more on the general principle.  Sorry, I misunderstood you.

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe this is a Canadian-only thing, but I could have sworn that when there's a controlling shareholder, there's a requirement that there needs to be a "majority of the minority" vote in favour.

So in effect a controlling shareholder's vote doesn't count at all.  An odd way to do things.  Perhaps a response to the fly by night shenanigans of the Canadian mining penny stock sector.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Maybe this is a Canadian-only thing, but I could have sworn that when there's a controlling shareholder, there's a requirement that there needs to be a "majority of the minority" vote in favour.

So in effect a controlling shareholder's vote doesn't count at all.  An odd way to do things.  Perhaps a response to the fly by night shenanigans of the Canadian mining penny stock sector.

No? A controlling shareholder gets to appoint a majority of the board, which also means determining the CEO/President, and in fact the controlling shareholder can hold the Chairmanship/CEO position if they so wish--this is often the case in closely held firms. This means they get to make important decisions every day, while minority shareholders largely have no day to day say in how the business is run.

Most stipulations requiring consent of the disinterested shareholders are case-specific and limited, mostly to prevent the worst theoretical abuses.

[The Minsky Moment]

Most American corporate transactions are governed by Delaware law, the typical place of registration for most public companies.

Under Delaware law, company directors owe duties to the company not to the controlling shareholder. In practice, of course, directors hold their jobs based on shareholder votes.  However, Aa alluded to by others, there are legal duties that apply and minority shareholders can sue based on violations of those duties.

\In Delaware law, it is permitted for corporations to disclaim duties of care in their charter, and many do.  As a practical matter, this means that directors and officers can't be sued for negligence, including negligent failure to maximize returns in the sale of the company (Smith v. van Gorkum).

However, the fiduciary duty of loyalty can never be eliminated. That duty prevents a controlling person from acting in their own interests against the corporate interest.  The duty of loyalty applies in any corporate transaction - including a sale of the entire company - where the control person has an interest. The standard applied is "entire fairness" - i.e. whether the transaction is entirely fair to all shareholders. 

In Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp. the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that "entire fairness" is presumed if the transaction is approved by both an independent Special Committee of the Board, and a majority of the minority stockholders.  In that sense the majority of the minority concept is present in US law.

However, it is possible to do a transaction that does not satisfy those conditions as long as it can be shown it was entirely fair.  But doing so will draw a lawsuit that will take time to resolve; often a death knell for a deal.

[Syt]

[mongers]

snip

:LOL:

[HVC]

Musk really likes to go on about the stack. It's almost like it's the only buzzword he knows.

Ex Twitter employee asks musk what's wrong with Twitters code

[Razgovory]

What's the stack?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Tech stack (sometimes called solution stack): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_stack

[viper37]

That was pretty much just a question of time since Elon fired most of the security team.

Twitter data breach: 400 millions users' data sold online

Account's name, email address, phone numbers, creation date of the account, just about everything someone could need to impersonate a celebrity or any influencer on Twitter.  I am unsure about the passwords though.

Raz, if you still want to impersonate Syt, this your chance, just bid on the data


Seriously, this is fucked up for the victims of the hack.  It seems it was really preventable.