|
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 07:00 AM EST |
Yes, I see how that would be failing in their fiduciary duty, but it is my
impression that businessmen do naughty things for personal gain.
That failing in fiduciary duty would make any of their personal shareholdings in
the company worth less. They would lose, along with all the other shareholders
except Elliott Associates.
Hovsepian stood to lose the benefit of his golden parachute, but the judge said
the plaintiff did not accuse him of the act of manipulating events in his
favour.
If the board failed in their fiducial duty I don't suppose after all that
receiving 'advice from its legal and financial advisors' it was the result of
mass-incompetence.
How did the board, as a whole, benefit from the lack of fiducial care? I don't
want to appear excessively cynical about their motives and intentions, but
surely what's in it for them would be at the root of any misdoings.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|