News How is anyone not talking about the UFC Antitrust lawsuit?

[kflo]

Um, yes they are, in very clear verbiage also, "...executives and officers have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to maximize both profits and investor returns."

Lol. Putting it in quotes doesn’t make it an actual legal quote.



And often maximizing “profits” goes contrary to maximizing investor returns and vice versa.

 

[2004 account]

Well, you said that most people's opinions about this was out of ignorance: "Too many people here have literally zero perspective and aren’t interested in understanding." I explained that they might understand it, but be opposed to it. Now you are moving the goalpost and strawmaning mine/other's statement, saying that I'm unrealistically expecting businesss to not operate in the interest of owners. I didn't argue that. That's why we need the anti trust lawsuit to progress and for the fighters to form a union; otherwise, their interests will always be subverted by ownership.

These ufc shills always be strawmanning.

 

[kflo]

These ufc shills always be strawmanning.

It’s a conspiracy bro....

 

[Lemmy Caution]

Ru fed up with the shitty pay of taco bell workers on the weekends. Go see how hard they work for 8.25. The lawsuit is bs. Socialist country

Having laws against shoddy business practices makes for a socialist country? As I think countries should, I must be a socialist. And, no, I'm not afraid of words.

 

[bloodshot69]

Lol. Putting it in quotes doesn’t make it an actual legal quote.



And often maximizing “profits” goes contrary to maximizing investor returns and vice versa.

Yes and no, admittedly "maximizing profits" is a poor description in absolute legal terms, but it's the accepted term in most board rooms. The link you provided is an interesting read from a philosophical perspective since I've gone through the process of selling a company I was invested in to a publicly traded company, which was a fascinating learning experience. However, the author tries to speak out of both sides of his mouth, case in point...

"The bottom line is that even if you think that corporate boards have a duty to maximize stock prices, they can still choose any course of action that is plausibly related to that goal over any time period they choose. Henry Ford lost Dodge v. Ford — in which he was forced to pay dividends to shareholders — not because the court thought he chose the wrong way to maximize profits, but because he went out of his way to insist that he was more interested in the greater good than in the Ford Motor Corporation and its shareholders. That’s why there is no effective duty of a board to maximize profits."

What the author describes is an absolute legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value, i.e. shareholder profits, which 99% of the time is the result of maximizing profits for the corporation as a whole.

Circling back to my initial point, there is a reason that companies act in semi-sociopathic ways, which again goes back to these responsibilities along with general human nature of greed.

 

[kflo]

Yes and no, admittedly "maximizing profits" is a poor description in absolute legal terms, but it's the accepted term in most board rooms. The link you provided is an interesting read from a philosophical perspective since I've gone through the process of selling a company I was invested in to a publicly traded company, which was a fascinating learning experience. However, the author tries to speak out of both sides of his mouth, case in point...

"The bottom line is that even if you think that corporate boards have a duty to maximize stock prices, they can still choose any course of action that is plausibly related to that goal over any time period they choose. Henry Ford lost Dodge v. Ford — in which he was forced to pay dividends to shareholders — not because the court thought he chose the wrong way to maximize profits, but because he went out of his way to insist that he was more interested in the greater good than in the Ford Motor Corporation and its shareholders. That’s why there is no effective duty of a board to maximize profits."

What the author describes is an absolute legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value, i.e. shareholder profits, which 99% of the time is the result of maximizing profits for the corporation as a whole.

Circling back to my initial point, there is a reason that companies act in semi-sociopathic ways, which again goes back to these responsibilities along with general human nature of greed.

I think you’re just being a bit sloppy with terminology.

we have many metrics we use to measure performance. Some are reported externally. Some are not. Some are short term. Some are not. Some have to do with $. Some do not. We do not maximize “profits”, or even “shareholder profits” which isn’t a defined term.

we give the market guidance and try to deliver or over deliver on that. We set strategy and targets we believe are achievable. Short and medium term. We make up our own definition of operating income that we focus the market on instead of just net income. Shareholder distributions. Growth. Investment. Social justice initiatives. Jobs. Expenses. Sales. Distribution relationships. Acquisitions. Divestitures. Risk management. There’s so many variables that you can’t say there is “a fiduciary duty to shareholders to maximize both profits and investor returns." Its a meaningless phrase and not one that is clear in verbiage as you said.

but I’ll agree with the sentiment that there is a responsibility to steer the company with the interests of the shareholders in mind. And most of what i discuss above translates into profit and value at some point. But even shareholders don’t all have the same interests. Time horizon matters a lot and affords some flexibility. And agree that you have to take emotion out a lot of the time. And leaders have to know if they don’t make the hard decisions there will be someone else in their place making them instead. We aren’t far apart in what we are saying but I just reacted to the idea that there are singular metrics we are obligated to maximize and that it’s backed by law.

not trying to be a dick and respect your experience and no doubt it’s interesting to see. And in the end managements primary obligation is to investors. And that is important for fans to appreciate. But prior to the sale, the fertittas were the investors and they controlled a lot of the decisions. They could have done whatever they wanted.

 

[burningspear]

 

[Alpha_T83]

It has potential, but it's going to be stuck in legal limbo forever. The judge just rejected the settlement that both sides had accepted, which is already a little strange. And Dana is setting the judge up as biased, saying that he grew up with the judge and there's a personal vendetta.

It sounds like the judge is going to rule against the UFC, but there will be appeals and possibly a re-trial if any bias or conflict of interest is found with the judge.

 

[BJJ4Tone]

Nothing would make me happier than having a front row seat to the demise of the bald goof.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

It has potential, but it's going to be stuck in legal limbo forever. The judge just rejected the settlement that both sides had accepted, which is already a little strange. And Dana is setting the judge up as biased, saying that he grew up with the judge and there's a personal vendetta.

It sounds like the judge is going to rule against the UFC, but there will be appeals and possibly a re-trial if any bias or conflict of interest is found with the judge.

I mean, if the judge really did go to school with Dana, should he be taking the case?

Just a question, gotta be honest, not my area of expertise.

 

[Alpha_T83]

I mean, if the judge really did go to school with Dana, should he be taking the case?

Just a question, gotta be honest, not my area of expertise.

There's a chance they didn't know each other at all, but I'd agree he shouldn't be taking the case. If there's even a hint of conflict of interest, he should recuse himself and pick another judge.