Someone probably sat him down and explained that he doesn't hold a majority of voting shares at Twitter, and that the company and other investors wouldn't put up with his shit. With a 75% majority, the other shareholders could vote to nullify his shares and make them worthless.
It's as if CEOs are dragged into a fiduciary court and forced to justify raising salaries, lowering prices or whatnot.
Irl, fiduciary duty is more about not stealing or cheating shareholders. There isn't a whole lot of legal activity where officers are sued for grey area fiduciary violations.
Musk could never put someone elses interests ahead of his own. Impossible.
Look at actual example/precedents of fiduciary duty vuilatuons. The real ones. Not the pseudo-legal theory.
The SEC would be extremely interested in such an attempt.
This is unbelievable. Can you share a credible source?
:shockedpicachu: when Americans find out that corporate governance isn’t nearly as restrictive as democracy.
Even in facebooks case before they went public, they were sued for this and ultimately settled for $5.5 billion.
It would also probably mean Twitter shares crashing to 0 in the public markets, not exactly in the interest of the 75%