[oarsinsync]

> Amazon are forced and obligated to use legal tax avoidance strategies to be competitive and to fulfil their fiduciary duty

Any precedent where shareholders have successfully sued a company for failing to exploit legal tax avoidance strategies would be appreciated. Otherwise, "forced and obligated" feels a bit of a stretch.

[shawnz]

Forced because of their competitors. Obligated for legal reasons.

[gamblor956]

Neither is true. Corporations are not fiduciaries for their shareholders and they do not have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value or even to protect their shareholders' investments.

The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it.

[shawnz]

> The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it.

Right. So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes.

[showdead]

> So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes.

Waste is one of a very short list of categories that are considered something no one wants: https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...

[gamblor956]

No, that's exactly wrong. They don't have a duty to minimize waste, otherwise they would have a duty to not award golden parachutes or large executive compensation packages or even to pay themselves more than a few hundred bucks a year.

[shawnz]

> otherwise they would have a duty to not award golden parachutes or large executive compensation packages

That's actually true though, they do have such a duty.

http://www.shareholderoppression.com/excessive-compensation

[gamblor956]

That only applies to approving their own excessive compensation..

It helps to read things before you link to then....