Not if the deal terms are commercially reasonable. NB, I have no information about these deals.
Business judgment is something we rely on from boards and executives all the time. Lack of disclosure and unfair transfer pricing are huge no-nos, but the existence of deals that are fair and beneficial to a public company is in no way prevented in the US.
EDIT: and, to be clear, while being publicly listed increases disclosure requirements, it doesn’t radically change your duties to shareholders as an exec/board member vs a private company. Once you have non-accredited investors on your cap table you owe them quite a lot in duty of care, regardless of listing venue for your stock. And of course you owe accredited investors a duty of care as well. Ultimately in the US we solve questions of fairness through adversarial legal proceedings, eg tbe SolarCity acquisition (deemed okay by the courts).
Business judgment is something we rely on from boards and executives all the time. Lack of disclosure and unfair transfer pricing are huge no-nos, but the existence of deals that are fair and beneficial to a public company is in no way prevented in the US.
EDIT: and, to be clear, while being publicly listed increases disclosure requirements, it doesn’t radically change your duties to shareholders as an exec/board member vs a private company. Once you have non-accredited investors on your cap table you owe them quite a lot in duty of care, regardless of listing venue for your stock. And of course you owe accredited investors a duty of care as well. Ultimately in the US we solve questions of fairness through adversarial legal proceedings, eg tbe SolarCity acquisition (deemed okay by the courts).