View Poll Results: Should the duty by re-examined?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    14 26.42%
  • No

    39 73.58%
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 117

Thread: The Duty of Corporations

  1. #41
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,443

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiderivative View Post
    Instead, the minority shareholders used the state to get want they want. Wow, that sounds like some crazy socialism - using the state to force a corporation into an action that they didn't want to take.
    I believe that misses the entire point.

    The minority shareholders used the state to get justice in court, with regards to what Ford was contractually required to provide them. That's the purpose of government/justice for all. That's exactly WHEN a minority should have power, when it's legally in the right!

    That's a fundamental objective of most relevant definitions of libertarianism (tea party) for example:
    Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    --advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.

  2. #42
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    2 things to note.

    Henry Ford was the largest shareholder
    Then I don't really see a problem with him using his influence to steer his company in the direction he wanted to take it. If a majority of the shareholders (even if that's just one person) want the company to fulfill other obligations besides merely giving them a profit, I don't see anything illegitimate about that. It's their call.

    and he had considerable control over the board of directors.
    The other shareholders (if they commanded a majority of the shares) could have simply replaced the Board of Directors with people he DIDN'T control, if they were unhappy with Henry Ford. And if they didn't command a majority of the shares, well, they could have simply dumped their shares if they weren't satisfied.

    Those 2 things would limit the power of the other shareholders from replacing him and represents a conflict of interest with the different positions he retained.
    I think a CEO who is also the largest shareholder is the opposite of a conflict of interest...indeed, I would be very wary about investing in a company where the management didn't have skin in the game. There are certainly some conflicts of interest surrounding issues such as CEO compensation and whatnot, but those conflicts are mitigated if the CEO is also a large shareholder.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #43
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then I don't really see a problem with him using his influence to steer his company in the direction he wanted to take it. If a majority of the shareholders (even if that's just one person) want the company to fulfill other obligations besides merely giving them a profit, I don't see anything illegitimate about that. It's their call.
    That violates the nature of a publicly held corporation.
    He's holding multiple positions with conflicting duties.

    If he has control over, the board of directors, the CEO/presidency and has the largest amount of shares, the conflict of interest can compromise his fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
    He has a legal obligation to shareholders, which they can sue to protect.

    Edit: It's not his business, he has no right to direct it towards his personal wants, ignoring the other investors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The other shareholders (if they commanded a majority of the shares) could have simply replaced the Board of Directors with people he DIDN'T control, if they were unhappy with Henry Ford.
    And if he decided to not let that come up for a vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I think a CEO who is also the largest shareholder is the opposite of a conflict of interest...indeed, I would be very wary about investing in a company where the management didn't have skin in the game. There are certainly some conflicts of interest surrounding issues such as CEO compensation and whatnot, but those conflicts are mitigated if the CEO is also a large shareholder.
    He also had significant control of the Board.
    That's the problem.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 10-10-11 at 06:16 PM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #44
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    ......
    Just a few reasons why the courts would "pierce the corporate veil."

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Absence or inaccuracy of corporate records;
    Concealment or misrepresentation of members;
    Failure to maintain arm's length relationships with related entities;
    Failure to observe corporate formalities in terms of behavior and documentation;
    Failure to pay dividends;
    Intermingling of assets of the corporation and of the shareholder;
    Manipulation of assets or liabilities to concentrate the assets or liabilities;
    Non-functioning corporate officers and/or directors;
    Significant undercapitalization of the business entity (capitalization requirements vary based on industry, location, and specific company circumstances);
    Siphoning of corporate funds by the dominant shareholder(s);
    Treatment by an individual of the assets of corporation as his/her own;
    Was the corporation being used as a "façade" for dominant shareholder(s) personal dealings; alter ego theory;



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercin...corporate_veil
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    01-09-12 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,014

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    They are not in business to react to miscreants. They are in busines to make money.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    02-23-12 @ 04:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    791

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    I believe that misses the entire point.

    The minority shareholders used the state to get justice in court, with regards to what Ford was contractually required to provide them. That's the purpose of government/justice for all. That's exactly WHEN a minority should have power, when it's legally in the right!

    That's a fundamental objective of most relevant definitions of libertarianism (tea party) for example:
    Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    --advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.
    Your condescending attitude is duly noticed. I know what libertarian is about, and you are not supporting it. You are supporting authoritative statism. Plus, the tea party is not libertarian.

    The company was primarily in the ownership of Ford. If Ford wanted to make a long-term investments into his company, community, and employees, then he should have been able to. If the Dodge Brothers did not like that, then they have the right to pull out. However, the Dodge Brothers instead used their minor voice to force the primary owner to do something against his will.

    Libertarianism are supposed to be against aggressive and coercive actions of the state, not for it.
    Last edited by Antiderivative; 10-10-11 at 06:37 PM.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    02-23-12 @ 04:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    791

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    Yes, or the investors will demand there is a change. If not, the investors will take out their money, or they will sue and probably win. This actually happens quite a lot.
    I see that you don't own stocks. Stock owners do not have direct vote over who their CEO is.

  8. #48
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiderivative View Post
    Your condescending attitude is duly noticed. I know what libertarian is about, and you not supporting it. You are supporting authoritativeness.

    The company was primarily in the ownership of Ford. If Ford wanted to make a long-term investment into his company, community, and employees, then he should have been able to. If the Dodge Brothers did not like that, then they have the right to pull out. However, the Dodge Brothers instead used their minor voice to force the primary owner to do something against his will.

    Libertarianism are supposed to be against aggressive and coercive actions of the state, not for it.
    Incorrect.
    When a company becomes publicly held, the ownership interest resides with all the shareholders.
    Only in some circumstances can their ownership be overruled, like in cases of a takeover, but the shareholders must be paid fair market value.

    If Ford didn't want to lose total control, he should of never went public.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    02-23-12 @ 04:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    791

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Incorrect.
    When a company becomes publicly held, the ownership interest resides with all the shareholders.
    Only in some circumstances can their ownership be overruled, like in cases of a takeover, but the shareholders must be paid fair market value.

    If Ford didn't want to lose total control, he should of never went public.
    Ford held 58% of the shares. He was by far the largest controlling shareholder. If the Dodge Brothers didn't like Ford's decisions, then they should have bought more controlling shares or cashed in and took their money elsewhere.

    The Dodge brothers were never held hostage. They were free to take their money and leave.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiderivative View Post
    Ford held 58% of the shares. He was by far the largest controlling shareholder. If the Dodge Brothers didn't like Ford's decisions, then they should have bought more controlling shares or cashed in and took their money elsewhere.

    The Dodge brothers were never held hostage. They were free to take their money and leave.
    The Dodge brothers were part of the original investors, but that does not negate the fact that the board has a legal obligation to care for the interests of all shareholders.
    It's their fiduciary duty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Henry Ford turned the presidency of Ford Motor Company over to his son Edsel Ford in December 1918. Henry, however, retained final decision authority and sometimes reversed his son. Henry started another company, Henry Ford and Son, and made a show of taking himself and his best employees to the new company; the goal was to scare the remaining holdout stockholders of the Ford Motor Company to sell their stakes to him before they lost most of their value. (He was determined to have full control over strategic decisions.) The ruse worked, and Henry and Edsel purchased all remaining stock from the other investors, thus giving the family sole ownership of the company.[18]


    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    When Edsel, president of Ford Motor Company, died of cancer in May 1943, the elderly and ailing Henry Ford decided to assume the presidency. By this point in his life, he had had several cardiovascular events (variously cited as heart attack or stroke) and was mentally inconsistent, suspicious, and generally no longer fit for such a job.[82]Most of the directors did not want to see him as president. But for the previous 20 years, though he had long been without any official executive title, he had always had de facto control over the company; the board and the management had never seriously defied him, and this moment was not different. The directors elected him,[83] and he served until the end of the war. During this period the company began to decline, losing more than $10 million a month ($126,990,000 a month today). The administration of President Franklin Roosevelt had been considering a government takeover of the company in order to ensure continued war production,[48] but the idea never progressed.
    Henry Ford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Both the board and Ford himself, violated their ethical and fiduciary duty to shareholders on multiple occasions.
    There was plenty of legal precedent to sue.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •