It seems a lot of people posting here don't realize that Mark Zuckerberg owns a majority of the voting power of FB's board through his shares.
Nobody can fire him unless he votes with them to do it.
Nobody can fire him unless he votes with them to do it.
The rules of the game are clear. Someone who doesn't like this game is free to walk away and do something else (most public companies don't have a CEO with majority voting power). Complaining without acknowledging the rules seems like misdirected energy.
Even as a controlling shareholder, the ex-CEO could take months to go through the process of nominating new board members and holding a shareholder election according to the corporate bylaws before his new hand-picked board members could hire him back.
Arguably there's forced investment by index fund holders but now the SP500 eschews companies with that structure, so even index investors can avoid this sort of thing.
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announ...
Thanks.
Because that's the company he founded and owns. It wasn't one of the most influential companies in the world upon being founded, it became so with Zuck at the helm.
> How does that benefit society as a whole?
How does this have anything to do with anything? And how do you propose we measure it?
The author should do some reading on Facebook's share ownership structure and come back to tell their readers on who owns the majority of the voting power and then just delete this entire article; since honestly, I stopped reading when I read the title.
Good luck on "Fire Mark Zuckerberg" without his 'say so', unless he does it himself.
>This is not a plucky startup founder or a journeyman finding his feet, but a guy who has the majority of voting power in a publicly-traded trillion-dollar enterprise who is giving a “forgot to prepare for this meeting” style speech.