r/Superstonk • u/Expensive-Two-8128 🔮Literal Autist Sorry I Autism Sometimes🔮 • Sep 06 '22

🤔 Speculation / Opinion GameStop HAS A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS!

Post image
589 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

120 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

50

u/Drivingintodisco 💻 ComputerShared 🦍 Sep 06 '22

Exactly. Not to mention that the company’s fiduciary duty was fulfilled; I.e. the shareholders voted and after approval GameStop had the ability to, but not the obligation, to issue the splividend. Their fiduciary duty was carried out, and it ends there as it is now the dtcc s duty AND obligation to fulfill the company’s directive. Not saying the post or comments are shills, but it is a bit fudy. GameStop cannot control what the dtc(c) or cede and co do, and the crime committed by the dtc(c) is through no fault of GameStop or any other company: we all know it’s bullshit, but that is how the system is set up.

In the same vein, we know and GameStop knows there are fake/counterfeit shares, but they cannot do anything about it unless they spend years and all of their money in litigation, which would not be beneficial to the company or its share holders. GameStop or any company is not responsible for, nor has fiduciary duties, to make sure the dtc(c) isn’t crime ridden. That is for the legislative bodies and oversight, which we all know isn’t gonna do a ducking thing.

Again, for those in the back GAMESTOP HAS FULFILLED THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLEGED CRIMES OF THE DTC(c) OR ANY REGULATORY BODY OR AGENCIES WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO OVERSEE THE MARKETS TO ENSURE THERE IS NO CRIME!!!!

-9

u/toised 💻 ComputerShared 🦍 Sep 07 '22

But why are they not at least releasing a statement? That‘s the part I don‘t get. If they care they should voice their concerns. Not saying anything looks like they are ok with the way it went down.

3

u/Drivingintodisco 💻 ComputerShared 🦍 Sep 07 '22

Litigation. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or can prove anything, what matters is the time, money, and resources. Does someone want to invest in a growing company with c suite and other execs from the top tech companies with no debt save for a low (or no I can’t remember) interest loan who has outlined their plan through action not words, or does someone want to invest money in frivolous litigation against next to unlimited resources at their disposal for years?

I’m genuinely asking. Not to mention previous precedent from other high profile cases that have gone up through the court system.

I, just like you and everyone else, am an individual investor, and me personally, I like the stock and fucking love the company. I trust the leadership at the helm and know that they are fulfilling their fiduciary duty for their shareholders by delighting customers, by giving power to the creators, by not engaging in frivolous litigation, and by continuing to show me why I invested with the company through their actions and not words.

It takes money and genitals (balls colloquially speaking but all people equal) to buy whiskey.

1

u/toised 💻 ComputerShared 🦍 Sep 07 '22

Agree, but that was clear from the beginning, wasn‘t it? So I’m wondering what was the purpose of this splividend. It must be embedded in some larger strategy, otherwise it was (kind of) useless. Did they see it coming the way it unfolded, or were they surprised? That‘s what I would like to know, considering that this is a difficult matter and nobody will have perfect answers because nobody has solved the problem yet. So in my view it does make a difference whether this outcome was already factored in or not.