Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why he had any need for this anyway. If he sold the shares along with the associated liabilities, why would he have any liabilities at all in Australian Style Investments?

View on HN

If you're referring to the bank buying back shares as a "favor" to the investors who didn't know better, I don't think that was part of his plan, just luck.

No what I mean is that he sold the shares, these shares came with a liability. When he sold his shares to Thiess John Holland, why didn't the liabilities go with them?

He only sold the voting rights associated with the shares in that transaction.

In that case, I don't understand. Why couldn't every shareholder with unwanted stock do this, less receiving money in exchange fore his/her voting rights? Put differently, if this is possible and legal, what keeps everyone else liable?

I think in most circumstances, nobody would want to buy the voting rights.

This was an unusual situation in which Theiss paid for the voting rights to vote against the interests of the share holders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com