The formatting is poor, but they have some numbers. After a very quick skim (so i might have misread), Ford made $60mil in profit that year and this fight was over a $50mil dividend payout which Ford said it couldn't do to build two new $11mil and $10mil facilities.
Ford was correct that they get to determine the reasonable course of the company (Business Judgement Rule). But Dodge was right that Ford had acquired far more money than needed for those reasonable goals. And since the case was brought to force Ford to pay out the excess cash like they said they would previously, at least some of it had to be paid out.
Just because the courts will defer to the businesses to run themselves, that doesn't mean that the businesses can do illegal things or act wildly outside the interests of the shareholders and/or business objectives.
Did that over with my cousin's Italian mastiff when he was 2 or 3, except i was cradling him in my arms like he was a big baby. He definitely did not trust that i wouldn't pick him up again for years after that. Sweetheart of a dog... Little slobbery.
Assuming that you are using lacquer and not gels, washing the dishes afterwards will help clean up the paint on the skin. Don't know if it's the moisture or the soap, and maybe it's an old wives tale, but worth keeping in mind.
they also make masking fluid that you can paint around the nail and then peel off.
The replacement for the puff of air is a handheld device that bounces a poker off of your eye. It's less obnoxious. The replacement for dilatingb your eyes is the big camera with the flash that temporarily changes colors for you
And you would use your dogs slobber for later waterings on that walk? Rather than fresh water?
I am aware of the point of the bottle. I am commenting on the displayed usage. I've never owned a dog that I wanted to provide it's slobber water back for drinking. As I said, it's not a choice I would make.
The idea of saving water from a dog bowl that a dog has been drinking from is certainly a choice.... not one that I would make, but it is a choice.
One of my judo sensei pointed out that the purpose/origin of the hold downs was just to buy time for your buddy to stab the guy you were restraining. A context that made the sketchier holds make way more sense to me (some Judo holds are really easy to get into but not ideal to really restrain someone for long).
and holding purses.
Porta john urinal for those who don't want to pee into the pooping hole
$50 - 11 - 10 would end up at $29m.
The court might have given some leeway of $10 mil to hire more local labor giving the $19m result,
But remember the business judgement rule itself is a rule of thumb that the business knows how to run itself, so the court is only going to rule against hem when it's obviously excessive and not a reasonable business oriented decision, which is a high bar to clear. Courts do not want to be second guessing businesses like they are running them.
yeah i thought that was what you meant, but i wanted to clarify i wasn't trying to argue one way or the other on the suit.
And yup, agreed.
butchering something I heard long ago, but very roughly....
Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism are both beautiful economic concepts that work perfectly on paper/in theory, but in the real world they can't because both extremes lead to cheating the system and inequality. The real world goal is somewhere in between and the trick is figuring out where that middle point is.
Of course, that middle point will change over time. But anyone advocating purely for the extreme is probably very wrong.
The full opinion is online if you want to read it: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1919/204-mich-459-170-n-w-668-1919.html
The formatting is poor, but they have some numbers. After a very quick skim (so i might have misread), Ford made $60mil in profit that year and this fight was over a $50mil dividend payout which Ford said it couldn't do to build two new $11mil and $10mil facilities.
In review I should have clarified that the suit was that there were an unreasonable number of approvals.
If UHC went from approving 70% of claim to 75% it probably wouldn't have been an issue. If they went from 70% to 95% the shareholders might have reasonable concern. I have no idea what the numbers in the suit actually were.
UHC was sued because they appeared to be approving everything far above their normal operations. Investors can accept some higher approval rates under the argument of good will, but UHC was beyond those reasonable counts.
...that Ford wasn't a charity; it was a corporation formed to produce and sell automobiles (or whatever the corporate statement was). People were investing to support this and he can't pivot now to be a charity to raise up the local community through a works program even though that would arguably be a good thing for the community.
Matt Levine often says "Everything is Securities Fraud" because of the ease that the US system allows shareholders to sue for misbehavior. He has specific articles on it in fact,
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud
To what you are getting at, remember how Corporations came to be... People are pooling money to undertake an endeavor and the people investing want to pursue that endeavor. That's why the court in Doddge v. Ford said....
https://legalclarity.org/dodge-vs-ford-the-case-that-defined-corporate-purpose/
Ford was correct that they get to determine the reasonable course of the company (Business Judgement Rule). But Dodge was right that Ford had acquired far more money than needed for those reasonable goals. And since the case was brought to force Ford to pay out the excess cash like they said they would previously, at least some of it had to be paid out.
Just because an attorney cites precedent doesn't mean that they do it correctly, and sometimes that is on purpose. It's up to the opposing council to make sure that they are playing straight.
Also, attorneys can be lazy and not paying attention to the sometimes vague opinions (a few cases in law school I had to reread to grok how the summary matched the judge's writing).
And some attorneys like using still valid portions of overturned opinions just to screw with people (they are the best)
I assume that you are referring to the Business Judgement Rule
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/business_judgment_rule
Just because the courts will defer to the businesses to run themselves, that doesn't mean that the businesses can do illegal things or act wildly outside the interests of the shareholders and/or business objectives.
Nah.
"Shareholder interests" might be "don't destroy the local ecosystem around the corporation". It isn't always about money; the entire meme stock era kind of made that obvious. The actual legal standard is more about the business doing what it put out to do and acting in the best interests of the business. If the shareholders don't like that, they can vote in a new board to change the direction or divest of their investments.
From the wikipedia page that OP links:
"Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. "
But, while they can use their chest of extra money to do all of those things, the amount of money they have is so much more than the reasonable costs of doing those things that they can't justify not paying the dividend at all.
Further, when you form a corporation, there is a question about the corporation purpose. Since they formed a corporation to make profit, they can't turn around now and claim that they want to be a charity
Lawsuit follows. Ford says "we have a pile of cash, sure. but we need to buy these iron smelters to secure our supply line. we need the cash for that." They also argued that they needed the cash to hire more people and support the local community. And anyhow, the Business Judgement Rule means courts can't question how businesses run themselves.
Ultimately, the state supreme court held that Ford was right, Business Judgement Rule does give them leeway...
Yeah, OP is in the wrong here and it's a short enough opinion to read to see why.
Roughly, Ford had a great year and made a pile of money and had been giving out dividends; due to the extra profit there was going to be a special dividend payout. The Dodge brothers were shareholders and Henry Ford knew they wanted to use their investment to start their own competing car company, so he slashed the dividend and said that he has given his shareholders enough money and they don't get anymore....
More discussion with the artist. https://thequantumqueer.tumblr.com/post/179733805012/hey-just-so-you-know-the-guy-behind-the-pixie
At worst, he's not saying what his politics are either way. https://thequantumqueer.tumblr.com/post/179733805012/hey-just-so-you-know-the-guy-behind-the-pixie
He's not the same person as the BedHed on Twitter who is a trunk supporter.
https://kigamin.wordpress.com/2018/11/04/hey-just-so-you-know-the-guy-behind-the-pixie/
He's not. The BedHed on Twitter is not the same person.
The original is a LetterKenny adjacent sketch. I see no reason this wouldn't be legit
https://youtu.be/itaP9_Vltfk