Not if the deal terms are commercially reasonable. NB, I have no information about these deals.
Business judgment is something we rely on from boards and executives all the time. Lack of disclosure and unfair transfer pricing are huge no-nos, but the existence of deals that are fair and beneficial to a public company is in no way prevented in the US.
EDIT: and, to be clear, while being publicly listed increases disclosure requirements, it doesn’t radically change your duties to shareholders as an exec/board member vs a private company. Once you have non-accredited investors on your cap table you owe them quite a lot in duty of care, regardless of listing venue for your stock. And of course you owe accredited investors a duty of care as well. Ultimately in the US we solve questions of fairness through adversarial legal proceedings, eg tbe SolarCity acquisition (deemed okay by the courts).
vessenes|1 year ago
Business judgment is something we rely on from boards and executives all the time. Lack of disclosure and unfair transfer pricing are huge no-nos, but the existence of deals that are fair and beneficial to a public company is in no way prevented in the US.
EDIT: and, to be clear, while being publicly listed increases disclosure requirements, it doesn’t radically change your duties to shareholders as an exec/board member vs a private company. Once you have non-accredited investors on your cap table you owe them quite a lot in duty of care, regardless of listing venue for your stock. And of course you owe accredited investors a duty of care as well. Ultimately in the US we solve questions of fairness through adversarial legal proceedings, eg tbe SolarCity acquisition (deemed okay by the courts).