The sad thing is that they own much less(how much?) than 58% of the stock.
Just like FB, Google and many other companies. You can sell majority ownership and still hold the majority voting power due to dual(and triple) class shares.
This is a perversion of common stocks and stockholders rights.
In old days there would be such a thing as preferred stock which at least granted liquidation preferences to those buying preferred.
I am still shocked that the CEO actually listened to the 5% holders and stepped down.
As Matt Levine rightly stated, Peleton CEO could have let the company burn to ground and there was nothing that minority stockholders(which could have owned the majority of the company but not the voting rights) could do.
> The sad thing is that they own much less(how much?) than 58% of the stock.
The 'special' shares have 20 votes per share - could be as low as 3% of the company. It's hard to see why anyone would invest in a company where someone who was deemed incompetent to be CEO but still has a massive control of the board.
I wonder if this will be a big issue for companies that look floundering and whose CEO/Founders are seen to be unable to control it - I've seen a few articles about Zuckerburg not being the right CEO for FB/Meta anymore (he also has over 50% of the votes) - if their share price did a few more 25% drops...
Just like FB, Google and many other companies. You can sell majority ownership and still hold the majority voting power due to dual(and triple) class shares.
This is a perversion of common stocks and stockholders rights.
In old days there would be such a thing as preferred stock which at least granted liquidation preferences to those buying preferred.
I am still shocked that the CEO actually listened to the 5% holders and stepped down.
As Matt Levine rightly stated, Peleton CEO could have let the company burn to ground and there was nothing that minority stockholders(which could have owned the majority of the company but not the voting rights) could do.