670
Bane Mask (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by CatGPT@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/linkedinlunatics@sh.itjust.works
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 5 points 1 day ago

It's not actually law and that's just what companies want to be the belief for them behaving reprehensibly

[-] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

If they didn't, other companies would be more attractive to capital, its how competition works.

[-] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago
[-] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 1 points 1 day ago

Yes, I believe you're interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders.

I believe you're confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that's a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions.

The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated

There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.

and the interpretation has been quite debated.

this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
670 points (99.3% liked)

LinkedinLunatics

6980 readers
243 users here now

A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com

(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS