undefined | Better HN

0 pointsshandor2y ago0 comments

As I mentioned in my comment, I'm unaware of the effect of the nonprofit status on this. But like the parent commenter mentioned I mostly was thinking of laws prohibiting destruction of shareholder value (edit: whatever that may mean considering a nonprofit).

It just seems ludicrous that the board could run a company into the ground like this and just shrug "nah we're nonprofit so you can't touch us and BTW we don't even need to make any statements whatsoever".

There have been many comments that the initial firing of Altman was in a way completely according to the nonprofit charter, at least if it could prove that Altman had been executing in a way as to jeopardize the Charter.

But even then, how could the board say they are working in the best interest of even the nonprofit itself, if their company is just disintegrating while they willfully refuse to give any information to public?

0 comments

turquoisevar2y ago

> It just seems ludicrous that the board could run a company into the ground like this and just shrug "nah we're nonprofit so you can't touch us and BTW we don't even need to make any statements whatsoever".

As ludicrous as that might seem, that's pretty much the reality.

The only one that would have a cause of action in this is the non-profit itself, and for all intents and purposes, the board of said non-profit is the non-profit.

Assuming that what people claim is right and this severely damages the non-profit, then as far as the law is concerned, it’s just one of a million other failed non-profits.

The only caveat to that would be if there were any impropriety, for example, when decisions were made that weren’t following the charter and by-laws of the non-profit or if the non-profit’s coffers have been emptied.

Other than that, the law doesn’t care. In a similar way the law wouldn’t care if you light your dollar bills on fire.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse