|
|
|
|
|
by vkou
3440 days ago
|
|
Me and my brother both own a horse. I have no immediate need for the horse, so I let my brother use it, but still maintain my stake in its ownership. My brother sells you the horse for $100, without asking me. You offer to buy me out for $50... And when I decline, threaten a lawsuit (On the grounds that you will put the horse to better economic use then I would have.) This is a problem between you and my brother, not you and me. This is also a story as old as colonialism. If you think this is all fine and dandy, and lives up to the greatest virtue of capitalism, please replace the horse in the analogy with shareholders having partial ownership of a company, and being forced to give up their stake, just because Zuckerburg paid off the biggest shareholder. Nobody's putting a gun to his head, forcing him to buy 700 acres of land in Hawaii. If he can't come to an agreement with all the owners of the land, he should go back to California, instead of suing minority owners. That's generally how business works. |
|
Large-scale reverse splits occasionally happen in real life, as a means of forcing smaller investors off the ownership rolls.