Accept blue origin is an independent company owned by bozo not amazon. So whe amazon fails to consider other options. They are failing to protect the amazon company.
Bozo is basically using one company to support another, at the cost of the 1st company. When the 2 companies are independent. That definatly is a valid reason for investors to question his responsibility to them.
You example would be more like complaining because the casino has magnets on the rulelet wheel.
But unfortunately you are wrong. 1st its not millionairs. It is a pension fund. These have everyday working bods as their members trying to earn a regular return.
So when the leader of a company make a choice that is not good corperate governance. Then the pension fund investing is required to act in its members interest.
You also made an error when you compare share holding to casino. Casinos are by their very nature gambling stovk port folios are an investment. Based on the information provided by the company.
So yes when a company behave in a way that goes against the investment claims the board made. They are prown to being sued.
Because it is those claims that investors base their risk on. Rather then a casino where your risk is based on knowing full well the house always wins.
Elon was also moving engineers over to Twitter when he bought it, which could have caused lawsuits from Tesla shareholders. Amazon and Tesla being public opens them up to more scrutiny about the billionaire BS.
In purchasing Falcon 9 rockets, Amazon would have been, in effect, funding the further development and improvement of the Starlink service.
The core issue is likely to be whether Amazon directors gave due consideration to this, and other related matters. The meetings to approve these launch contracts, according to the lawsuit, were brief and perfunctory. Perhaps the real question is whether Amazon’s directors should have spent more time discussing whether launching its Kuiper satellites on time, and likely for about half the cost of its other options, outweighed the downside of supporting a competitor’s business.
deleted by creator
Accept blue origin is an independent company owned by bozo not amazon. So whe amazon fails to consider other options. They are failing to protect the amazon company.
Bozo is basically using one company to support another, at the cost of the 1st company. When the 2 companies are independent. That definatly is a valid reason for investors to question his responsibility to them.
You example would be more like complaining because the casino has magnets on the rulelet wheel.
deleted by creator
Elon has plenty of lawsuits against him.
But unfortunately you are wrong. 1st its not millionairs. It is a pension fund. These have everyday working bods as their members trying to earn a regular return.
So when the leader of a company make a choice that is not good corperate governance. Then the pension fund investing is required to act in its members interest.
You also made an error when you compare share holding to casino. Casinos are by their very nature gambling stovk port folios are an investment. Based on the information provided by the company.
So yes when a company behave in a way that goes against the investment claims the board made. They are prown to being sued.
Because it is those claims that investors base their risk on. Rather then a casino where your risk is based on knowing full well the house always wins.
Elon was also moving engineers over to Twitter when he bought it, which could have caused lawsuits from Tesla shareholders. Amazon and Tesla being public opens them up to more scrutiny about the billionaire BS.
SpaceX launching Elon Musks privately owned Tesla Roadster is hardly cross company.
There’s a side effect of good marketing for both companies and the “Elon Musk”-brand, but he’s doing a good job of tarnishing that brand on his own.
Anti-trust seems like a good thing to bring back though.
From the article.
If the casino changes their rules after you put your money down you sure as hell can sue them.
deleted by creator