Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jan 2012 11:25 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless This rumour is not new, nor is it particularly earth-shattering. However, with Windows Phone 7 failing to make a dent in the market place, and Nokia's Lumia 800 not making huge waves either, the rumour's been taken out of the shed again: Microsoft is supposedly acquiring Nokia's smartphone division later this year. Stephen Elop will resign from Nokia shortly afterwards.
Thread beginning with comment 502348
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: stop the conspiracy theory
by B. Janssen on Fri 6th Jan 2012 10:50 UTC in reply to "stop the conspiracy theory"
B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

Most of you seem to be unaware that it is a legal requirement of company directors to maximise shareholder returns and preserve capital. This requirement may include selling all or part of the business. Refusing or obstructing a takeover offer that benefits shareholders is illegal.


Is it? I mean, obviously you want a manager to take care of a company and make it prosper, but is there really a legal requirement to a) maximise shareholder value and b) that would make not selling whole or part of the company given a) illegal? This would not mesh well with civil liberties, don't you think?

Shareholder value is a rather recent idea (1980s, I think, by a guy named Rappaport) and companies were successful before. I'd really be surprised if somebody poured this idea into law. So, where would I find the law text that says maximising shareholder value is a company's duty?

Reply Parent Score: 3

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Yes. Directors are legally required to protect shareholder value. They can be sued for failure to do so.

Reply Parent Score: 2

B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

Yes. Directors are legally required to protect shareholder value. They can be sued for failure to do so.


Thanks for your answer. I've read of shareholders suing companies and/or managers. But those cases, like the current Lloyds of England case, are resting on misleading or false reports. The lawsuits are not about making losses or not maximising shareholder value. I'm not sure how that would work anyway.

So I'm not sure if your interpretation of the lawsuits isn't a bit extreme. I really would like to see some printed material about this, not to play the stupid "facts & authority" card on you, but because I'd like to learn more about this issue and my Scroogle-Fu seems to be weak ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2