In practice I would guess there would be lawsuits filed immediately to hold up any such activity until he had time to exert control of the board, but it would have been interesting nonetheless.
Isn’t the Board supposed to act in the best interest of the shareholders?
And if one person holds a majority of shares, wouldn’t that mean the Board is effectively acting based on that individual’s direction?
Someone who understands it well should explain please.
Like the Astronomer CEO that was forced to resign, could the sane thing happen to Zuckerberg in similar circumstances since he has majority share?
What If it was something entirely different, could they force him out? I don't understand it.
i.e The only way to prevent this from happening would be to stay private?
Also, I’m not sure of the ownership structure, but he may own 57% of voting stock but a minority of non voting stock, and the non-voting members may have certain rights irrespective of voting rights. I’d be shocked if they didn’t negotiate some kind of escape hatch.