• rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    And we know that this is fiction because fiduciary duty means he’d immediately get fired and sued for turning around the company

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        No he doesn’t? He gets sidelined for a while, which he doesn’t fight because he’s dostracted. Never gets sued. The second movie starts with a hearing where the gov is trying to acquire his new weapons, but it’s not a lawsuit and has nothing to do with the company.

          • SalamenceFury@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Because he’s busy building Iron Man armors and locked on his basement/garage and not doing anything CEO related?

            • Sharkticon@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 hours ago

              At one point I believe the dude tells him that the board has locked him out. So it’s not quite as happenstance as you’re suggesting.

              • SalamenceFury@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                Are we forgetting Stane was orchestrating the whole thing? Like, the entire movie is him just scheming to take over Stark Industries because he wants to continue selling weapons. I wouldn’t put it past him to essentially strongarm or manipulate the other stockholders into locking Stark out, especially given that the entire movie sets him up as someone who can and WILL use violence to get what he wants.

                I wouldn’t even be surprised if he essentially threatened the other shareholders into locking Tony out, perhaps not directly though.

        • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          9 hours ago

          They discuss it in the wiki article:

          Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting.

    • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Actually, Tony, Pepper, and Obadiah together owned more than half of the company’s stock. Obadiah would have needed virtually ALL of the other shareholders to agree to such a lawsuit, and he decided to use violence instead of bothering with the headache that would have been. After he died, anyone trying to do the same would have needed to get Ezekiel Stane on board, while Tony and Pepper were consolidating their control over shares and offering a lot of money for anyone who wanted to cash out of SIA while it was still worth something. So yeah, Tony stopped that from happening by being good at business, it wasn’t just plot armour.