Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#81

Post by forgetsusername »

downandout wrote: post #57

The "investors" suing are just working with/for attorneys that extort massive legal fees and damages from public companies for a living. This case has nothing to do with the underlying conduct, which was merely a clerical error. These attorneys are one of the big reasons that unicorns are staying private. The most famous of these bottom-feeding attorneys, Bill Lerach, built an estimated net worth of $700 million [1]…

>"which was merely a clerical error."

It was likely a clerical error, in this instance. But that was only after discovered after the law suit. Should we give these corporate boards the benefit of the doubt? That's funny.

>by creating exactly these kinds of nonsensical shareholder lawsuits against public companies

It isn't "non-sensical".

There are rules and laws that govern public companies, and public companies are obligated to follow them. Someone has to keep people honest, and in the US that's often done through the courts.

I'm sure Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg will learn a lesson to be more diligent in such matters. That's the point.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#82

Post by forgetsusername »

wolf550e wrote: post #80
arethuza wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might also appeal to people who are generally pro-corporate but also like to see anyone (individual or corporation) brought to justice if they misbehave? Can you really "extort" money through the court system in the US?

Patent trolling is extortion, isn't it?

Extortion is a crime.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#83

Post by arethuza »

wolf550e wrote: post #80
arethuza wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might also appeal to people who are generally pro-corporate but also like to see anyone (individual or corporation) brought to justice if they misbehave? Can you really "extort" money through the court system in the US?

Patent trolling is extortion, isn't it?

Actually, that's a good example - thanks. I guess you could argue that problem is how silly patents are though rather than the problem being with the court system itself.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#84

Post by forgetsusername »

downandout wrote: post #72
MrJagil wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting, reading your comment I was of the impression that Lerach must be universally disliked for his slimy methods, exploitation of the system and oppressiveness in the free market (unicorns scared to go public). Reading the first comment on the linked youtube video(i know) reminded me once again to be sceptical of everything i read though: "Bill Lerach, the former #1 enemy of corrupted corporations. He ma…

To be sure, his work was a mixed bag. His firm ran the shareholder case against Enron, which clearly was not baseless litigation (his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million). However, having read a few things about him, the majority of the cases he brought were designed to extort quick settlements out of the companies. He was/is reviled by corporate America, and he p…

>his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million

Why do you feel the need to point out how much Mr. Lerach earns or is worth in your discussion? What is the relevance?

You realize the Facebook Board of Directors has 8 billionaires on it, right?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#85

Post by rayiner »

downandout wrote: post #72
MrJagil wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting, reading your comment I was of the impression that Lerach must be universally disliked for his slimy methods, exploitation of the system and oppressiveness in the free market (unicorns scared to go public). Reading the first comment on the linked youtube video(i know) reminded me once again to be sceptical of everything i read though: "Bill Lerach, the former #1 enemy of corrupted corporations. He ma…

To be sure, his work was a mixed bag. His firm ran the shareholder case against Enron, which clearly was not baseless litigation (his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million). However, having read a few things about him, the majority of the cases he brought were designed to extort quick settlements out of the companies. He was/is reviled by corporate America, and he p…

Here is an old article that details some of Lerach's firm's settlements in the 1998-2003 timeframe: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0216/082.html. The firm was making multiple nine-figure settlements per year. Nobody settles meritless strike suits for that kind of money. Learch's firm recovered $45 billion over 30-40 years. It's simply impossible to do that with meritless lawsuits designed to extract a quick settlement.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#86

Post by michaelt »

jegutman wrote: post #45
sopooneo wrote: post #28

If a share barely gives you voting rights, and the company does not, and does in the foreseeable future plan to, issue dividends, then what is the inherent value of the stock? Is it just my portion of the proceeds in case of a firesale?

The structure of the company gives you the right to future dividends at the same rate as other classes of stock. So as long as they think they're creating something of value and the marketplace does you own an equal equity share of that entity. Google finally paid a dividend (although a one-time dividend) and also announced a stock buyback so these companies may start returning capital. As of right now facebook think…

  Bottom line, you have the same rights to payments per
  share as Zuckerberg. Also technically Zuckerberg will at
  some point (might be 30-50 years from now) start divesting
  his shares
Why would he issue a dividend, where he has to share the money with other shareholders, when he could approve himself a bonus, and not have to share the money with anyone?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#87

Post by [deleted] »

forgetsusername wrote: post #81
downandout wrote: post #57

The "investors" suing are just working with/for attorneys that extort massive legal fees and damages from public companies for a living. This case has nothing to do with the underlying conduct, which was merely a clerical error. These attorneys are one of the big reasons that unicorns are staying private. The most famous of these bottom-feeding attorneys, Bill Lerach, built an estimated net worth of $700 million [1]…

> "which was merely a clerical error." It was likely a clerical error, in this instance. But that was only after discovered after the law suit. Should we give these corporate boards the benefit of the doubt? That's funny. > by creating exactly these kinds of nonsensical shareholder lawsuits against public companies It isn't "non-sensical". There are rules and laws that govern public companies, and public companies ar…

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#88

Post by aianus »

michaelt wrote: post #86
jegutman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The structure of the company gives you the right to future dividends at the same rate as other classes of stock. So as long as they think they're creating something of value and the marketplace does you own an equal equity share of that entity. Google finally paid a dividend (although a one-time dividend) and also announced a stock buyback so these companies may start returning capital. As of right now facebook think…

Bottom line, you have the same rights to payments per share as Zuckerberg. Also technically Zuckerberg will at some point (might be 30-50 years from now) start divesting his shares Why would he issue a dividend, where he has to share the money with other shareholders, when he could approve himself a bonus, and not have to share the money with anyone?

Bonuses are fully taxed as income, dividends have a much preferable tax rate.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#89

Post by aianus »

forgetsusername wrote: post #77
Animats wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New York Stock Exchange, back when it had a Board of Governors, did not allow companies with more than one class of stock to trade on the NYSE.[1] That rule was in effect from 1928 to 1988. The NYSE gave it up because companies were listing on the NASDAQ instead, which allowed multiple classes of stock. Ford was grandfathered in. Berkshire Hathaway only created a second class of stock in 1996, and that was just b…

> and they're going to lead to trouble for companies whose stock drops and whose management can't be replaced. That will be both the problem and solution. Eventually a situation will arise in which the shareholders get burned, and it will be restricted from that point on, either by fiat or refusal of common investors to partake in any offering with this sort of structure.

You would not have wanted to invest in a Google or Facebook run by some MBA instead of the founders.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document

#90

Post by forgetsusername »

aianus wrote: post #89
forgetsusername wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they're going to lead to trouble for companies whose stock drops and whose management can't be replaced. That will be both the problem and solution. Eventually a situation will arise in which the shareholders get burned, and it will be restricted from that point on, either by fiat or refusal of common investors to partake in any offering with this sort of structure.

You would not have wanted to invest in a Google or Facebook run by some MBA instead of the founders.

>You would not have wanted to invest in a Google or Facebook run by some MBA instead of the founders.

I invest in companies run by MBAs all of the time. I don't fear them or think they're inherently stupid.

I mean, "tech people" have never failed at running companies, am I right?

Post reply on HN