Meta shareholders look to haul CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg to court(nypost.com)
nypost.com
Meta shareholders look to haul CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg to court
https://nypost.com/2025/07/15/business/meta-shareholders-aim-to-haul-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-sheryl-sandberg-to-court/
99 comments
These kinds of suits are so common that directors and officers of large corporations all carry insurance against them --- is there something particularly notable about this suit?
"The lawsuit is considered the first of its kind to go to trial that alleges that board members consciously failed to oversee their company."
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/company-news/2025/07/16...
https://www.klgates.com/The-Continued-Evolution-of-Caremark-...
IMO, also notable because of who is scheduled to testify.
Unless I am missing something, I don't think Zuckerberg has ever been questioned under oath in court.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/22/facebook-settles-class-actio...
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/company-news/2025/07/16...
https://www.klgates.com/The-Continued-Evolution-of-Caremark-...
IMO, also notable because of who is scheduled to testify.
Unless I am missing something, I don't think Zuckerberg has ever been questioned under oath in court.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/22/facebook-settles-class-actio...
It discusses HN-adjacent VCs, Delaware business law, and "Big Tech" and government regulation.
But, yeah, the $8B in question hardly seems existential to FB.
But, yeah, the $8B in question hardly seems existential to FB.
Oh, yeah, no, I totally get why a serious lawsuit against Facebook execs would be on-topic for HN! I'm more asking, doesn't Facebook see a lawsuit like this like once a quarter?
Does Meta break a new law every quarter?
This suit is regarding a privacy order they failed to meet and the investors claim this led to the Cambridge Analytics affair. Not a once a quarter repeat event.
This suit is regarding a privacy order they failed to meet and the investors claim this led to the Cambridge Analytics affair. Not a once a quarter repeat event.
If by "break a law" you mean "commit an unlawful act", including colorably reneging on contracts or committing torts as well as violating regulations and committing crimes, then yes, I think every major corporation in America does thats several times a quarter.
Sorry, my personal information bubble is not calibrated to maintain a half-way-objective estimate on that.
Perhaps if we hang around here looking sad someone else will research the answer and tell us?
Perhaps if we hang around here looking sad someone else will research the answer and tell us?
IANAL, but this case sounds like the extremest of long shots to me. Does anyone who knows about this sort of thing have any idea how likely such a lawsuit is to suceede?
I'm cynical enough to think that this, too, will result in a payout of some kind. Whatever it might be called.
Companies like this are too big to be held accountable. Every problem is soluble given their capitalization, the only consequence is irritation and fighting—usually among those already complicit and merely concerned that they didn't maximize their view—of interest to few.
Meanwhile, Rome is burning. Oh well.
Companies like this are too big to be held accountable. Every problem is soluble given their capitalization, the only consequence is irritation and fighting—usually among those already complicit and merely concerned that they didn't maximize their view—of interest to few.
Meanwhile, Rome is burning. Oh well.
Meta are not involved.
Individuals directors are being sued, not the company
Individuals directors are being sued, not the company
Does anybody with knowledge of the process know if this can be a path to holding companies liable for the private data they save?
You would have to be a shareholder (which you probably are if you have a 401k) and you would have to show that their decision to save and use private data has hurt their enterprise such that they would have been more profitable and/or grown more/faster had they not done so.
How many shareholders are leading this? It better not be someone who owns one share that they didn't even hold for that long....
As one might expect Zuckerberg has now reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. Andreesen was scheduled to take the stand today. As in 2017, Andreesen and Zuckerberg have avoided having to answer questions in a courtroom under oath. By settling at the 11th hour.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"We knowingly bought into a scheme where one man - the one we're suing - has 51% of the voting power on all corporate affairs. We think he screwed up and owes us money. Can you help us?" - the shareholders to the Delaware CoC, in effect.
Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American.
Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American.
The company, board of directors still owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. Having 51% of voting control doesn't change that.
If you don't like how a company is being managed, your recourse is to pull your investment.
That wouldn't make the investors whole for past violations, which is why they are suing for breach of fiduciary duty.
Except that there are limits on fiduciary duty. It should not be confused for a right to earn money. Losing money on a bad investment is part of the game. The duty that they have is to carry out the terms of the investment prospectus and nothing more.
Shareholders have the right to not get lied to by executives. The SEC forces companies to put lots of stuff into their annual reports, giving companies lots of opportunities to lie to shareholders. Companies basically write "we aren't doing anything morally ambiguous" in their annual reports, almost always lying when they do so.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
Except that intentionally making bad investments fully knowing that they are bad investments is not something you can put aside as just “bad investments you lost money on”. This is absolutely something the board needs to hold the executive team accountable for and is part of their fiduciary duty.
You're right, they absolutely should.
I bet the chairman, Mark Zuckerberg, is going to steer the board to get right on with punishing the CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for his careless administration of the company.
I bet the chairman, Mark Zuckerberg, is going to steer the board to get right on with punishing the CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for his careless administration of the company.
This. I think the executives have an obligation to state their plans so investors can decide if they want to back it. But if making top dollar is a requirement then lots of companies should liquidate and invest in other companies with higher returns or something.
You can also sue them, because the law says they have a fiduciary duty towards you.
You can also work collectively with other shareholders to directly impact the board
Activist investors have always been around.
They only pull their investments if they fail.
They only pull their investments if they fail.
If a manager doesn't want to manage within the law for the benefit of shareholders, their recourse is to purchase all the shares.
Is this fiduciary duty to make as much money as possible (who gets to decide what the max is), or just not to scam or steal from your investors?
Essentially, yes, it's to increase stock value, but generally the courts are to defer to executives' judgment on such decisions as long as the executive is acting in good faith. So in practice you don't have to, like, exploit people or anything as long as you say not exploiting people is good for the long-term health of the company's good will or something.
As per that article, it is said they failed to comply with a law. And complying with laws will be a given in most contracts.
Making money comes after complying with law and rules.
Making money comes after complying with law and rules.
Can you cite case law for this opinion which would apply to a large public corporation during normal management?
The idea that directors of a corporation have a fiduciary duty to the company is not controversial. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Duties
No seems clear that the board of directors have fiduciary responsibilities to all shareholders in Anglo common law.
However reading some of the case law it seems that being a majority stockholder wasn’t always held the have same fiduciary responsibilities. Sounds like they still don’t in some jurisdictions?
Sort of fascinating and shows there’s some legal distinctions between majority stockholders and board of directors. IANAL but seems less cut and dry than summary articles pretend.
A blanket statement like the one I replied to oversimplifies things and implies Delaware law is federal law. It may be the largest and most influential in the US but it’s not the only equity law in the US.
However reading some of the case law it seems that being a majority stockholder wasn’t always held the have same fiduciary responsibilities. Sounds like they still don’t in some jurisdictions?
Sort of fascinating and shows there’s some legal distinctions between majority stockholders and board of directors. IANAL but seems less cut and dry than summary articles pretend.
A blanket statement like the one I replied to oversimplifies things and implies Delaware law is federal law. It may be the largest and most influential in the US but it’s not the only equity law in the US.
> However reading some of the case law it seems that being a majority stockholder wasn’t always held the have same fiduciary responsibilities. Sounds like they still don’t in some jurisdictions?
I don't think that is relavent. As far as i understand Zuck is not being sued because he is a majority shareholder.
> A blanket statement like the one I replied to oversimplifies things and implies Delaware law is federal law.
I don't think anything you said disagrees with the statement you responded to. The statement you responded to never claimed that majority share holders have a fuduciary duty.
I don't think that is relavent. As far as i understand Zuck is not being sued because he is a majority shareholder.
> A blanket statement like the one I replied to oversimplifies things and implies Delaware law is federal law.
I don't think anything you said disagrees with the statement you responded to. The statement you responded to never claimed that majority share holders have a fuduciary duty.
Interesting re-reading the Wikipedia link after reading some of the case law summaries this sticks out:
> Also, the duties [of board of directors] are owed to the company itself, and not to any other entity.[42] This does not mean that directors can never stand in a fiduciary relationship to the individual shareholders; they may well have such a duty in certain circumstances.[43]
Again it appears more nuanced than just “board of directors have fiduciary responsibility to minority shareholders”. Actually seems incorrect to phrase it that way even.
> Also, the duties [of board of directors] are owed to the company itself, and not to any other entity.[42] This does not mean that directors can never stand in a fiduciary relationship to the individual shareholders; they may well have such a duty in certain circumstances.[43]
Again it appears more nuanced than just “board of directors have fiduciary responsibility to minority shareholders”. Actually seems incorrect to phrase it that way even.
I think the idea is more that directors have a duty to the company (not the minority shareholder), and minority shareholders can bring suit on behalf of the company to allege that the duty to the company (and not themselves) was violated. When talking informally that feels like it amounts to basically the same thing, just technically slightly different [ianal,i might be out of my depth here]
IANAL either, which is why I asked for case law. I’d like to understand a bit more.
Strong statements like the OPs without qualifications can lead to skewed ideas. For example look at the amount of damage done by the “shareholder primacy” theory which many believe is a core legal requirement rather than a legal theory.
Strong statements like the OPs without qualifications can lead to skewed ideas. For example look at the amount of damage done by the “shareholder primacy” theory which many believe is a core legal requirement rather than a legal theory.
I too would like be enlightened, I'm not a lawyer but I 'd like to feel smarter, knowing the names of some cases and what was decided.
The other comment's Wikipedia link had footnotes for "Percival vs Wright [1902]" and "Coleman v Myers [1977]", but these are UK and New Zealand cases.
For the US, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Fiduciary_duties_und... seems most appropriate wiki link but most of the footnotes were for analysis and not cases.
The other comment's Wikipedia link had footnotes for "Percival vs Wright [1902]" and "Coleman v Myers [1977]", but these are UK and New Zealand cases.
For the US, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Fiduciary_duties_und... seems most appropriate wiki link but most of the footnotes were for analysis and not cases.
Case law for the proposition that the company has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders? Here's a top google result for you: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/fiduciary-duty-to-investors
you're asking someone to cite case law for a random post on a forum?
> The company, board of directors still owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. Having 51% of voting control doesn't change that.
Not OP but they were very confident in what they wrote. I'd assume they'd be able to provide evidence. Just because it's the law doesn't mean we're not gonna get asked for evidence. Maybe we should be more careful with our claims then.
Not OP but they were very confident in what they wrote. I'd assume they'd be able to provide evidence. Just because it's the law doesn't mean we're not gonna get asked for evidence. Maybe we should be more careful with our claims then.
You asked for them to cite case law. Certainly a link to a random article would convince you, though?
Whatever is necessary to support the claim
> The company, board of directors still owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. Having 51% of voting control doesn't change that.
No, not a "random" article, but one that actually did do the homework and check law. Someone has to, otherwise you can't claim to know what the law says.
> The company, board of directors still owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. Having 51% of voting control doesn't change that.
No, not a "random" article, but one that actually did do the homework and check law. Someone has to, otherwise you can't claim to know what the law says.
demanding weird standards of proof in a conversation is an annoying thing to do. if you want to know with more confidence maybe take two seconds to google it
[deleted]
Not sure what your point is, the Meta shares are doing great, hence Zuckerberg being in charge of things works.
From the second paragraph:
> The trial, set to begin Wednesday in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, aims to hold Zuckerberg, former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg and other former executives personally liable for the billions the company spent to resolve allegations that it failed to safeguard user data.
> The trial, set to begin Wednesday in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, aims to hold Zuckerberg, former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg and other former executives personally liable for the billions the company spent to resolve allegations that it failed to safeguard user data.
Stock being up doesn’t mean they’re not allowed to voice dissatisfaction
Dissatisfaction to what?
The reply I answered mentioned the fiduciary duty to all shareholders, but, in my limited understanding of the term, based on how I see the term used, this means the company has an obligation to make moneis for the shareholders. Which Meta does, quite well.
Obviously, people can be dissatisfied about anything, but I'm not sure Meta is failing the "fiduciary duty" aspect.
The reply I answered mentioned the fiduciary duty to all shareholders, but, in my limited understanding of the term, based on how I see the term used, this means the company has an obligation to make moneis for the shareholders. Which Meta does, quite well.
Obviously, people can be dissatisfied about anything, but I'm not sure Meta is failing the "fiduciary duty" aspect.
Suppose meta stock price went up 10% despite the fact that Zuckerberg burned $1B in cash just for shits and giggles in a literal bonfire.
Are you saying you perspective is that investors have to suck it simply because the stock is up?
Are you saying you perspective is that investors have to suck it simply because the stock is up?
You can't tell your investors that you are going to make money building a farm, and then instead take their money and build houses with it. Even if the end result is you made more money building houses than you ever would have building a farm, you can't lie about your plans for the money. Consider an investor might already be heavily invested in building houses, and they want to diversify their portfolio by by investing in something that builds farms.
You are getting down voted because all the promises FB/META made to investors are available online and they never lied about how they are going to make moneys.
I never said they did, I was just telling OP how "we made money don't complain how" isn't adequate
“The stock is up, but it would be up more” - investors
Breach of fiduciary duty is already extremely hard to prove when share prices are down. Mark has the added benefit of the doubt that arises from the fact that his incentives are fundamentally aligned with the company's incentives, given how much of his wealth is tied up in those shares.
Being allowed to voice something doesn't make the something valid.
Hence the legal work, yes
Have you worked in this area?
I have worked with asset managers, employees come from all around the world and vary in background. Yes there will be a weighting to the more privileged kids but most of the jobs don't make big bonuses. That's just the Sales leads and funds managers.
But it's irrelevant. As the institutional investors who invest are doing so for their underlying investors e.g. Pension Funds.
The people suing, if win, will report higher results and their bonuses will be higher but so will the underlying investors.
I have worked with asset managers, employees come from all around the world and vary in background. Yes there will be a weighting to the more privileged kids but most of the jobs don't make big bonuses. That's just the Sales leads and funds managers.
But it's irrelevant. As the institutional investors who invest are doing so for their underlying investors e.g. Pension Funds.
The people suing, if win, will report higher results and their bonuses will be higher but so will the underlying investors.
> Remember: the people who work for these shareholders - most of which are institutional investors, not individuals - went to exclusive schools and make more in bonuses than you will in a lifetime of work, at least if you're the average American.
So? What's your point? We should root for Zuckerberg because the people who are suing him are rich? Zuckerberg is an order of magnitude worse in all those resentment metrics you list than the people who are suing him.
So? What's your point? We should root for Zuckerberg because the people who are suing him are rich? Zuckerberg is an order of magnitude worse in all those resentment metrics you list than the people who are suing him.
My point is that everyone involved is awful and that none of this should happen in a remotely sane society. What kind of corporate governance model allows for a dictatorship? Why aren't the shareholders just selling if they think they were wronged the better part of a decade ago?
Because we're insane.
Maybe they're filing the suit out of the fiduciary duty to their fund members. Worst-case scenario, it goes nowhere. Best-case scenario, they get money out of Meta. Now, they're doing this off the backs of the people of Delaware, but whatever.
Because we're insane.
Maybe they're filing the suit out of the fiduciary duty to their fund members. Worst-case scenario, it goes nowhere. Best-case scenario, they get money out of Meta. Now, they're doing this off the backs of the people of Delaware, but whatever.
Not true. These are people who are likely responsible for global economic meltdowns and then asking for handouts (anyone remember 2008). Zuck isn’t making anyone’s life harder without them signing into his platforms. Just stay off of them if you don’t like zuck.
But you can’t stay off the financial system. So, creepy as zuck maybe, I think he is impact for evil is a whole lot less.
But you can’t stay off the financial system. So, creepy as zuck maybe, I think he is impact for evil is a whole lot less.
SoftTalker(1)
megous(1)
Wow. Go Meta shareholders!!
Meta's stock did 26x since 2012, they're already winning
Meta absolutely pumps out money.
It's embedded in the sales process of very many, perhaps most, businesses, and their margins are huge.
https://valustox.com/META
It's embedded in the sales process of very many, perhaps most, businesses, and their margins are huge.
https://valustox.com/META
They are upset it didn't go 66x.