AT&T, U.S. Telecom Groups Seek To Block New Internet Rules

Instead, the groups and companies sought to block the agency's move to reclassify broadband Internet as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service, and a new broad general conduct standard that prohibits Internet providers from "unreasonably interfering" with consumers' access to the web. While the requests are expected to be rejected by the FCC, they pave the way for the industry to ask courts to pause the implementation of the rules while they are being litigated. The new regulations go into effect on June 12.

Click to expand...

kbrickley said:

legally they have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize value

Click to expand...

tetris42 said:

That's a myth:

"
Nor does the law require, as many believe, that executives and directors owe a special fiduciary duty to shareholders. The fiduciary duty, in fact, is owed simply to the corporation, which is owned by no one, just as you and I are owned by no one — we are all “persons” in the eyes of the law. Shareholders, however, have a contractual claim to the “residual value” of the corporation once all its other obligations have been satisfied — and even then directors are given wide latitude to make whatever use of that residual value they choose, as long they’re not stealing it for themselves.

It is true that only shareholders have the power to select a corporation’s directors. But it requires the peculiar imagination of a corporate lawyer to leap from that to a broad mandate that those directors have a duty to put the interests of shareholders above all others.
"

It's basically dogma running the show nowadays, it wasn't always like this.

Click to expand...

Traze said:

But that's what large corporations do, shit all over everyone as much as they can.

Well, at least 99% of them.

Click to expand...

techrat said:

YAY! FREE MARKET!

Free to fuck over people over!

Click to expand...

maxius said:

The funny thing here if this reaches the court it will be instantly tossed. As the FCC is doing what the court instructed it to do to impose the net neutrality rules back in 2010 that were tossed due to Verizon being a little bitch. Now the all have to eat the Title II sammich

Click to expand...

tetris42 said:

That's a myth:

"
Nor does the law require, as many believe, that executives and directors owe a special fiduciary duty to shareholders. The fiduciary duty, in fact, is owed simply to the corporation, which is owned by no one, just as you and I are owned by no one — we are all “persons” in the eyes of the law. Shareholders, however, have a contractual claim to the “residual value” of the corporation once all its other obligations have been satisfied — and even then directors are given wide latitude to make whatever use of that residual value they choose, as long they’re not stealing it for themselves.

It is true that only shareholders have the power to select a corporation’s directors. But it requires the peculiar imagination of a corporate lawyer to leap from that to a broad mandate that those directors have a duty to put the interests of shareholders above all others.

It's basically dogma running the show nowadays, it wasn't always like this.

Click to expand...

jpm100 said:

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from a editorial on Corporate goals. But anyway Enron legislation did narrow the focus of CEO's and their conduct. And shareholders do own the companies depending on the type of business classification and stock grade. 'residual value' is all that any 'owner' has after debts/obligations are paid. Take your car that still has $2000 owed to the bank. If you sell it, you're entitled to what's left over after you pay the $2000.

Click to expand...

Part I, “Debunking the Shareholder Value Myth,” traces the intellectual origins of shareholder-primacy thinking. It shows how the ideology of shareholder value maximization lacks any solid foundation in corporate law, corporate economics, or the empirical evidence. Contrary to what many believe, U.S. corporate law does not impose any enforceable legal duty on corporate directors or executives of public corporations to maximize profits or share price. The economic case for shareholder-value maximization similarly rests on incorrect factual claims about the structure of corporations, including the mistaken claims that shareholders “own” corporations, that they have the only residual claim on the firm’s profits, and that they are principals who hire and control directors to act as their agents. Finally, there is a notable lack of persuasive empirical evidence demonstrating that individual corporations run according to the principles of shareholder value maximization perform better over time than those that are not.

Click to expand...

tetris42 said:

I'm quoting the article. But fine, if you want a more credible source, here's one republished on Harvard's site from Cornell Law School:

http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/

This was published in 2012, years after Enron. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I would think Cornell Law School would be a reputable source. If you think Cornell is wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

Click to expand...

tetris42 said:

I'm quoting the article. But fine, if you want a more credible source, here's one republished on Harvard's site from Cornell Law School:

http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/

This was published in 2012, years after Enron. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I would think Cornell Law School would be a reputable source. If you think Cornell is wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

Click to expand...