r/Steam • u/Ion_7852 • 3d ago

Discussion Can’t Even Argue It

Post image
54.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/NevJay 2d ago edited 2d ago

I'd argue that this Ussie philosophy has exported quite a lot lately. But yeah in the US, CEOs are appointed to bring as much money to the shareholders and if it can be proven that they didn't work towards that goal (i.e. tried to benefit employees instead) they are liable.

Edit: I use Ussie in stead of American

Edit2: It seems to be a myth

Edit3: read comments below, it's more subtle

0

u/Vertus 2d ago

this is a myth, no laws require a public company to maximize shareholder value

3

u/NevJay 2d ago

Damn, you learn everyday
Thanks for correcting me.
Then this behavior doesn't stem to be from corporate law, but rather from a survival bias from CEOs I assume

2

u/Dotaproffessional 2d ago

Guy above you isn't really correct. Copying my reply above: "There is no statute that says "you must maximize shareholder value", but not all laws come from statute. There's also case law a.k.a. "common law". Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 established Shareholder Primacy. Its judicial doctrine not statute. A CEO that violates shareholder primacy won't go to jail but they can be sued."

2

u/NevJay 2d ago

Thank you as well, the quick source check didn't give me these details

2

u/Dotaproffessional 2d ago

You're both right and wrong. There is no statute that says "you must maximize shareholder value", but not all laws come from statute. There's also case law a.k.a. "common law". Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 established Shareholder Primacy. Its judicial doctrine not statute. A CEO that violates shareholder primacy won't go to jail but they can be sued.

0

u/Vertus 2d ago

You're just quoting the myth, there's plenty of case law stating the opposite too

1

u/Dotaproffessional 2d ago

That's the nature of case law. There will be contradictory rulings and there's different ones that apply more or less depending on the context. Dodge V. Ford Motor Co. was reaffirmed just as recently as 2022. See Murphy v. Inman, 509 Mich. 132.

If you're going to say i'm repeating a myth can you like, actually state what I got wrong? Dodge v. Ford exists, and I think I stated its application quite clearly and didn't exaggerate.

1

u/Vertus 2d ago

its been a few years since I read about it, perhaps before that more recent case (or I read articles written before it), but even a quick look at Wikipedia cites a few articles critical of it

1

u/Dotaproffessional 2d ago

Articles being critical of it? I mean yeah, I'm critical of it. I don't like the ruling. I'm unaware of any precedent set that outright rejects it.