alt Hacker News> Continuing our discussion from last time
I have genuinely no idea who you are or what we were talking about.
> can you elaborate on why you think quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?
Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%26....
> Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts.
No sir, it was you who were confused - you brought them up here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46186549
> > There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders
> No, there isn't. The whole point of Revlon duties is that they trigger "in certain limited circumstances indicating that the 'sale' or 'break-up' of the company is inevitable" [1]. Outside those conditions, "the singular responsibility of the board" is not "to maximize immediate stockholder value by securing the highest price available."
I'll leave it up to you to recontextualize with the remainder of that thread if you want to continue discussing.