Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pizzalife 1101 days ago
He doesn't seem to have a great way with words. If you are the owner (implying >50% ownership), you can't be fired by the shareholders. If you hold less than 50%, you are not the business owner.
5 comments

If Huffman had the foresight to not speak, this whole mess probably would have blown over by now.

The API change upset mods. The AMA and these subsequent interviews have created genuine animosity that will bring large changes to Reddit.

If the outcome will be good or bad is anyone’s guess. But it’s clear that many moderators are much more upset at Huffman’s behavior than the API changes.

Under a few specific conditions minority shareholders can oust an owner CEO. Beyond board seats and voting rights, there is a duty to protect the interests of all shareholders not just the owner. So for example if the owner sells off assets to themselves below market rate it’s not ok.

Similarly, if the owner CEO is in a coma, mental institution, etc they can be ousted.

No, he can still be removed as CEO, and you actually mean >50% of voting shares, and you also have the board of directors etc. It’s more complicated than just having >50%, especially in things like fraud etc
Non-voting and dual class shares let you control a company with fewer than 50% ownership (e.g. Zuckerberg and facebook)
If you have more than 50% and your actions are deemed to be against the company the minority stakeholders can ask legally to take control. Even if no actions are taken but your statements appear incoherent
Minority owners can sue, but it doesn't mean they will win. Especially in this case spez is most likely the lightning rod for the board so Reddit can get a big fat IPO. If majority of the board is behind him, there's nothing minority owners can do except pray.

Investors are happy to preach and virtue signal about the 'S' in ESG until hundreds of millions is on the line. Then you won't hear a peep from them.