The Off Topic Topic

[Duque de Bragança]

Fondue was a big thing there in the 70s haha

Fondue savoyarde or fondue bourguignonne? 

[DGuller]

I'm much more shocked than only 26% have not heard of Liechtenstein.  Then again, what's to stop you from just being neutral about a country without admitting you don't know WTF it is.  They should've included a couple of fake countries just to see how Americans feel about them.

[Savonarola]

I'm much more shocked than only 26% have not heard of Liechtenstein.  Then again, what's to stop you from just being neutral about a country without admitting you don't know WTF it is.  They should've included a couple of fake countries just to see how Americans feel about them.

Latervia - Negative
Pottsylvania - Negative

[Habbaku]

I'm much more shocked than only 26% have not heard of Liechtenstein.  Then again, what's to stop you from just being neutral about a country without admitting you don't know WTF it is.  They should've included a couple of fake countries just to see how Americans feel about them.

We are generally in favor of bombing Agrabah.

[grumbler]

Pottsylvania - Negative

"That's it.  No more Mister Nice Guy!"

[HVC]

Fondue was a big thing there in the 70s haha

Fondue savoyarde or fondue bourguignonne? 

the one with melted cheese. all the same here

actually, maybe they just know about Switzerland because of swiss cheese

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm much more shocked than only 26% have not heard of Liechtenstein.  Then again, what's to stop you from just being neutral about a country without admitting you don't know WTF it is.  They should've included a couple of fake countries just to see how Americans feel about them.

Last time someone tried that, America bombed Freedonia.  We can't risk that kind of violence just to improve survey results.

[Jacob]

So apparently there's a big suit against Facebook, aimed at Zuckerberg personally and most of the board...

Here's a tweet about it: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440304941428473857

Do any of you know how big a deal this may be (vs social media froth)?

[Barrister]

So apparently there's a big suit against Facebook, aimed at Zuckerberg personally and most of the board...

Here's a tweet about it: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440304941428473857

Do any of you know how big a deal this may be (vs social media froth)?

Okay so this isn't my area, and I'm basing it off of news reporting without reading the 600+ page claim itself.

But this claim is being brought on behalf of individual FB shareholders.  The substance of the claim is that FB payed $5 billion, rather than $100 million, in order that Zuckerberg not be found personally liable.  Problem is the concept of the "corporate veil", where it's really hard to find individuals responsible for the bad actions of the corporation itself.  And corporations will generally act to protect their employees and principal actors from individual liability.

As well the FTC specifically agreed to the settlement, as did Facebook.  Both are sophisticated entities well aware of their legal responsibilities.

Then there's a bunch of stuff about lying to Congress.  But I'm not exactly sure how the shareholders have any standing to sue on this basis - surely that's up to Congress?

And having been brought by shareholders it's hard to see how they have much room to complain - FB's stock price has only gone up, from ~$75 in 2016 to $348 today.


But I'm very open to more informed opinions than mine.

[Sheilbh]

Okay so this isn't my area, and I'm basing it off of news reporting without reading the 600+ page claim itself.

But this claim is being brought on behalf of individual FB shareholders.  The substance of the claim is that FB payed $5 billion, rather than $100 million, in order that Zuckerberg not be found personally liable.  Problem is the concept of the "corporate veil", where it's really hard to find individuals responsible for the bad actions of the corporation itself.  And corporations will generally act to protect their employees and principal actors from individual liability.

As well the FTC specifically agreed to the settlement, as did Facebook.  Both are sophisticated entities well aware of their legal responsibilities.

Then there's a bunch of stuff about lying to Congress.  But I'm not exactly sure how the shareholders have any standing to sue on this basis - surely that's up to Congress?

And having been brought by shareholders it's hard to see how they have much room to complain - FB's stock price has only gone up, from ~$75 in 2016 to $348 today.


But I'm very open to more informed opinions than mine.

Yeah I've no idea. There's a few pretty limited routes for shareholders to sue at least in the UK and it's normally for things like unfair victimisation. It's complicated but they can also sue on behalf of the company against directors for failing in their duties so I wonder if there's something similar going on here? That it was a failure fiduciary duties to Facebook to pay $5 billion instead of $100 million to protect Zuckerberg?

[crazy canuck]

If corporate assets (cash) was used to protect the private interests of a person then that seems to be a text book derivative action - ie an action brought on behalf of a company by shareholders to protect the interests of the company.

BB - it does not matter that the shares went up or down.  The issue is whether the corporation was harmed by its assets being misused by insiders.  The damages get paid to the corporation, not the shareholders.  Although shareholders as a whole would benefit if an individual is required to pay back billions of dollars to a corporation.

The sticking point will be whether it was only for his personal benefit or whether it was for the benefit of the company.  I don't know near enough to make any guess about that.

[Admiral Yi]

Really? 3% of Americans have not heard of "Italy"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8pnec4Hxps

[Admiral Yi]

Really? 3% of Americans have not heard of "Italy"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8pnec4Hxps

[Sheilbh]

I found this surprising:


I will, however, not let facts stop me moaning

[Syt]

Yeah, that seems off. Rule of thumb for Vienna is 30% of net income goes into rent.

I also did the math again. If I had enough money that I'd only need a 200k loan from the bank (i.e. I finance ca. 100k myself), and pay it off over 30 years, the monthly payments would be more than my rent sans side costs (which I would have to pay either way).