|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
sharholders and other people do not get details of all the contracts that
companies sign.
The Board of Directors doesn't look at all contracts to this level of detail.
They get summary information (total amount paid to company X), and large deals
may end up requiring board approval, but this is what you hire company
management to deal with.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
It would be a disaster for them. It would destroy their ability to
negotiate. Instead, the problem is, this trial shouldn't be happening in
the first place. That is the problem here, not the reactions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 04:58 AM EST |
Does it suggest that somebody may not want you to know just how much you are
being taken for?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 04:41 PM EST |
Are the small
shareholders among those excluded from
knowing?
Not just the small shareholders but all
shareholders!
The Board has an agency relationship with the shareholders -
they run the business for the shareholders and the shareholders are not allowed
to interfere with that running (though they can put pressure on the board to do
things they think they ought to do as they are the board's "employers"); the
board has a duty of confidentiality to the company which can prevent them
disclosing information to those outside the running the company.
For
example, shareholders of a company agreed to sell their shares to directors as
at certain price, but the directors knew that the shares were worth much more
due to an impending take-over bid, which they couldn't disclose. The
shareholders tried to have the contract sales rescinded; they failed. (This is
the case [in the UK] of Percival v Wright [1902] 2 CH 421.) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
