| |
Main
Date: 09 Jun 2006 13:14:12
From:
Subject: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
The latest from the resellers and I bet all that coffee -831,864
pounds- is getting more and more monsooned:).
Here is the latest:
-item description
-These bags of green coffee have incurred some water damage due to
-Hurricane Katrina and must be sold in order to recover funds for the
-insurance company. Please see details in the attached document.
-5,859 SOUND bags
-4,778 bags regular
-1,081 bags decaf
-688,874.54 lbs. regular
-172,990.34 lbs. decaf
-Bids exceeding $10,000 require a 10% deposit check
-Quantity: 831864.88 lbs
-Product Location: New Orleans, Louisiana 70126, United States
-End Time: Jun-19-06 12:00 PM CST
-Time Remaining: 9 days, 17 hrs, 52 mins
-Market Maker: Tim Nguyen (713-229-9000)
-Condition: There has been marginal damage to the coffee due to
-flooding and dripping from roof tops.
****The yuck factor!
-Here's the URL if you are interested
http://www.comexinternational.com/listings/listing_detail.cfm?aucID=182933292
Aloha,
Cea
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2006 18:41:25
From:
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
See the following link to bid on Item 1829313294:
1,446,617 LB Katrina Coffee offered by Comex International on a
bid/auction basis.
The seller states, "These bags of green coffee have incurred some water
damage due to Hurricane Katrina and must be sold in order to recover
funds for the insurance company. Please see details in the attached
document." and "This coffee was damaged during Hurricane Katrina.
Product must be reconditioned. COFFEE MUST BE RECONDITIONED BEFORE IT
CAN LEAVE NEW ORLEANS."
http://www.comexinternational.com/listings/listing_detail.cfm?aucID=182933294
These goods will eventually end up in someone's cup.
-Donald Schoenholt
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jun 2006 22:04:09
From: jenny
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
<i840coffee@optonline.net > wrote in message
news:1149903685.571830.201070@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> These goods will eventually end up in someone's cup.
>
> -Donald Schoenholt
>
I can't imagine a reputable company like Folgers or Maxwell House buying
that stuff but some mom & pop coffee roaster prolly would.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Jun 2006 21:36:36
From: Johnny
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
"jenny" <(jennynospam@gmail.com) > wrote in message
news:e6d9b10tmt@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> <i840coffee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:1149903685.571830.201070@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > These goods will eventually end up in someone's cup.
> >
> > -Donald Schoenholt
> >
>
> I can't imagine a reputable company like Folgers or Maxwell House buying
> that stuff but some mom & pop coffee roaster prolly would.
>
whew! 1,446,617 LB: that's a lot of beans, that's like 10,000 bags....after
they buy that you'd need to call them mom,pop and 100 helpers
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2006 21:16:59
From: Dick Hymen
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
Oh! Geeeeeeeeze! Yeeeeeeeeeech!
The warehouses along the river were flooded with raw sewage in 90 degree
heat for months and they are calling that "marginal water damage"? And some
greedy sleezeball is going to buy it and then retail it off? That's
disgusting!
I can hear it now.....
Wifey: "Hey honey, how do you like the new coffee I bought today?"
Hubby: "Ehhhhhhh, I don't. It tastes like shet!"
<beans@smithfarms.com > wrote in message
news:jtvj825k63lio3028r0l69voqtbgs9ft0j@4ax.com...
> The latest from the resellers and I bet all that coffee -831,864
> pounds- is getting more and more monsooned:).
>
> Here is the latest:
>
> -item description
> -These bags of green coffee have incurred some water damage due to
> -Hurricane Katrina and must be sold in order to recover funds for the
> -insurance company. Please see details in the attached document.
>
>
> -5,859 SOUND bags
> -4,778 bags regular
> -1,081 bags decaf
> -688,874.54 lbs. regular
> -172,990.34 lbs. decaf
> -Bids exceeding $10,000 require a 10% deposit check
>
> -Quantity: 831864.88 lbs
> -Product Location: New Orleans, Louisiana 70126, United States
> -End Time: Jun-19-06 12:00 PM CST
> -Time Remaining: 9 days, 17 hrs, 52 mins
>
> -Market Maker: Tim Nguyen (713-229-9000)
> -Condition: There has been marginal damage to the coffee due to
> -flooding and dripping from roof tops.
> ****The yuck factor!
>
> -Here's the URL if you are interested
> http://www.comexinternational.com/listings/listing_detail.cfm?aucID=182933292
> Aloha,
> Cea
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2006 19:08:08
From: DougW
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
Cea did pass the time by typing:
> -Here's the URL if you are interested
> http://www.comexinternational.com/listings/listing_detail.cfm?aucID=182933292
> Aloha,
> Cea
Thanks, I'll alert the folks at the FDA to this resell of potentially contaminated food product.
If any of it touched flood water it is illegal to sell
and must be destroyed. Beans are not like canned food,
they are considered crop.
http://www.fda.gov/oc/katrina/foodindustrykatrina.html
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857
1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332)
I have also taken the liberty to notify comexinternational of the FDA order.
--
DougW
|
| |
Date: 10 Jun 2006 06:35:31
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
Does sound nasty, doesn't it? OTOH, maybe it is a matter of
perspective. When you think of those guys walking around in the open
air, raking the beans as they dry, birds flying over head, god knows
what on their shoes....
Thank God for high roasting temps. The "damaged" beans may taste
horrible but it is unlikely that they would transmit any disease.
Will
"The human capacity for....oh heck, you know."
|
| |
Date: 10 Jun 2006 05:52:17
From: ronnie.b
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
DougW wrote:
> Cea did pass the time by typing:
>
> > -Here's the URL if you are interested
> > http://www.comexinternational.com/listings/listing_detail.cfm?aucID=182933292
> > Aloha,
> > Cea
>
> Thanks, I'll alert the folks at the FDA to this resell of potentially contaminated food product.
>
> If any of it touched flood water it is illegal to sell
> and must be destroyed. Beans are not like canned food,
> they are considered crop.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/oc/katrina/foodindustrykatrina.html
>
> Food and Drug Administration
> 5600 Fishers Lane
> Rockville, Maryland 20857
> 1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332)
>
> I have also taken the liberty to notify comexinternational of the FDA order.
>
> --
> DougW
I don't think the FDA will allow this coffee to be sold in the U.S. I
see it being exported to some 3rd world countries to be sold there. The
danger then is the 3rd world country exporting and selling the
processed coffee here.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 10 Jun 2006 12:43:00
From: nimbus
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
I think it is far more likely that these end up being sold by a
mega-corp than a mom and pop roaster. Most small roasters highly value
quality.
Corporations, on the other hand, have a legal responsibility to
maximize profits. It is the law, and it is their "fiduciary
responsibility." That is one of the problems with corporations. The law
says they are required to maximize profits (without breaking any laws
of course - wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Small companies don't have that written into their bylaws...
I wouldn't touch those beans with a ten foot pole. Well, maybe out of
curiosity...
-nimbus
beans@smithfarms.com wrote:
> The latest from the resellers and I bet all that coffee -831,864
> pounds- is getting more and more monsooned:).
>
> Here is the latest:
>
> -item description
> -These bags of green coffee have incurred some water damage due to
> -Hurricane Katrina and must be sold in order to recover funds for the
> -insurance company. Please see details in the attached document.
>
>
> -5,859 SOUND bags
> -4,778 bags regular
> -1,081 bags decaf
> -688,874.54 lbs. regular
> -172,990.34 lbs. decaf
> -Bids exceeding $10,000 require a 10% deposit check
>
> -Quantity: 831864.88 lbs
> -Product Location: New Orleans, Louisiana 70126, United States
> -End Time: Jun-19-06 12:00 PM CST
> -Time Remaining: 9 days, 17 hrs, 52 mins
>
> -Market Maker: Tim Nguyen (713-229-9000)
> -Condition: There has been marginal damage to the coffee due to
> -flooding and dripping from roof tops.
> ****The yuck factor!
>
> -Here's the URL if you are interested
> http://www.comexinternational.com/listings/listing_detail.cfm?aucID=182933292
> Aloha,
> Cea
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 18:55:54
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On 10 Jun 2006 12:43:00 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com > wrote:
>That is one of the problems with corporations. The law
>says they are required to maximize profits (without breaking any laws
>of course - wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
>
really? got a citation for that?
>Small companies don't have that written into their bylaws...
aren't a number of "small companies" incorporated? ;)
--barry "corp of one"
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 10:47:42
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
In <jtvj825k63lio3028r0l69voqtbgs9ft0j@4ax.com >, on Fri, 09 Jun 2006
13:14:12 -1000, beans@smithfarms.com wrote:
> -688,874.54 lbs. regular
> -172,990.34 lbs. decaf
>
> -Quantity: 831864.88 lbs
Hello? With the "old math" that answer would be,
-Quantity: 861,864.88 lbs.
What's a little 30,000 lb. discrepancy though?
I think Bernie should buy it all and figure out the
best way to convert it into fuel for his truck. It
wouldn't get any more poetic than that.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 10:33:27
From: Johnny
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
"Steve Ackman" <steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com > wrote in message
news:slrne8ob8d.jv3.steve@wizard.dyndns.org...
> I think Bernie should buy it all and figure out the
> best way to convert it into fuel for his truck. It
> wouldn't get any more poetic than that.
I like it :-)
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 12:12:13
From: DougW
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
Steve Ackman did pass the time by typing:
> In <jtvj825k63lio3028r0l69voqtbgs9ft0j@4ax.com>, on Fri, 09 Jun 2006
> 13:14:12 -1000, beans@smithfarms.com wrote:
>
>> -688,874.54 lbs. regular
>> -172,990.34 lbs. decaf
>>
>> -Quantity: 831864.88 lbs
>
> Hello? With the "old math" that answer would be,
> -Quantity: 861,864.88 lbs.
>
> What's a little 30,000 lb. discrepancy though?
That would be after you scrape the caked sewerage off the beans.
--
Doug ("Pre-brewed" Katrina coffee anyone?) W
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 21:27:28
From: nimbus
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
Bringing something up as an aside is different than beating it to
death. I rest my case.
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2006 20:22:55 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >All interesting stuff, but I have coffee to think about, so I'm signing
> >out of this one. I'm happy to entertain future discussions via private
> >email. C'mon folks, this is alt.coffee not alt.corporatelaw...
>
>
> ...says the guy who brought it up in the first place. ;)
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 20:22:55
From: nimbus
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
I'm just glad I'm not a corporate lawyer :-)
YOu made some good points, Marshall, thanks...
Yeah, it is my understanding that corporations can write into their
by-laws additional goals, such as social justice for example. But then
they'd have to carry through with that, so I think most choose not to
write that in.
I know caterpillar got some flak for selling armored bulldozers to
Israel which were used bulldoze peoples' homes even though their
mission statement (??) had some statements about social consiousness
(or similar) entering their decision-making process. (I was a
Caterpillar shareholder at the time and had some discussions with
groups protesting their decision to keep selling the bulldozers - but I
can't remember exact details of the case).
All interesting stuff, but I have coffee to think about, so I'm signing
out of this one. I'm happy to entertain future discussions via private
email. C'mon folks, this is alt.coffee not alt.corporatelaw...
Cheers,
-nimbus
Marshall wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2006 19:40:54 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Barry Jarrett wrote:
> >> On 11 Jun 2006 15:45:17 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Basically, the corporation MUST maximize shareholder value. Otherwise,
> >> >they can be sued by their shareholders for negligence.
> >>
> >> that's not what your cite says, nor does your cite reference any
> >> *laws* which require the activity you claim.
>
> >Ok Barry,
> >
> >I'm taking your bait.
> <snip>
> >Fiduciaries are held by the common law to a high standard in fulfilling
> >their stewardship over the assets of others, a standard that ...may not
> >be the same as ideal corporate governance. Yet therein lies perhaps
> >the greatest strength of Delaware's corporation law. Fiduciaries who
> >act faithfully and honestly on behalf of those whose interest they
> >represent are indeed granted wide latitude in their efforts to maximize
> >shareholders' investment..."
> >
> >The KEY here are the words "maximize shareholders' investment."
> >Corporate law is complex and murky, but this topic has been well
> >examined.
> >
> >Here's a 20+ page link if you're bored: (enjoy)
> >http://www.fhe.com/files/tbl_s5084FileUpload/FileName5632/67/fiduciaryDuties-bork102805.pdf
> >
> >-nimbus
>
> You misunderstand both Barry and the court.
>
> Corporate management who choose to "maximize" profit are "granted wide
> latitude" in Delaware (and other states), even though such behavior
> may not be "ideal corporate governance." Corporations are free to
> include other values in their management philosophy and are not
> required to abandon them by statutory or court-made law. That was
> Barry's point.
>
> A number of successful coffee business are organized as for-profit
> corporations and, while making a very good return on their
> investments, choose not to "maximize" their profits, because of other
> values they hold dear.
>
> And, for what it is worth, the musings of a court in the introduction
> to its decisions are called "dictum" and are not considered law,
> although they can be a useful guide to the court's thinking. The best
> guide to the binding part of a decision is when they write, "We
> hold...."
>
> Marshall
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 03:49:10
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On 11 Jun 2006 20:22:55 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com > wrote:
>All interesting stuff, but I have coffee to think about, so I'm signing
>out of this one. I'm happy to entertain future discussions via private
>email. C'mon folks, this is alt.coffee not alt.corporatelaw...
...says the guy who brought it up in the first place. ;)
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 03:47:36
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On 11 Jun 2006 20:22:55 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com > wrote:
>Yeah, it is my understanding that corporations can write into their
>by-laws additional goals, such as social justice for example. But then
>they'd have to carry through with that, so I think most choose not to
>write that in.
>
i know a company that has "to have fun" written into the "business
purpose" section of the organizational papers filed with the state.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 19:40:54
From: nimbus
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
Ok Barry,
I'm taking your bait.
As you may or may not know, the corporate laws of Delaware are very
extensive and pretty much set the standards for many other states in
the US. Here is part of a court opinion from 2005: (court opinions are
interpretations of law, and thus are essentially law for all practical
purposes)
In its prelude to
a lengthy fact finding of 75 pages, the court made powerful statements
about the fiduciary duties
of direction:
"Unlike the ideals of corporate governance, a fiduciary's duties do
not
change over time. How we understand those duties may evolve and
become refined but the duties themselves have not changed, except to
the extent that fulfilling a fiduciary duty requires obedience to other
positive law...
Fiduciaries are held by the common law to a high standard in fulfilling
their stewardship over the assets of others, a standard that ...may not
be the same as ideal corporate governance. Yet therein lies perhaps
the greatest strength of Delaware's corporation law. Fiduciaries who
act faithfully and honestly on behalf of those whose interest they
represent are indeed granted wide latitude in their efforts to maximize
shareholders' investment..."
The KEY here are the words "maximize shareholders' investment."
Corporate law is complex and murky, but this topic has been well
examined.
Here's a 20+ page link if you're bored: (enjoy)
http://www.fhe.com/files/tbl_s5084FileUpload/FileName5632/67/fiduciaryDuties-bork102805.pdf
-nimbus
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2006 15:45:17 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Basically, the corporation MUST maximize shareholder value. Otherwise,
> >they can be sued by their shareholders for negligence.
>
> that's not what your cite says, nor does your cite reference any
> *laws* which require the activity you claim.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 03:42:49
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On 11 Jun 2006 19:40:54 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com > wrote:
>act faithfully and honestly on behalf of those whose interest they
>represent are indeed granted wide latitude in their efforts to maximize
>shareholders' investment..."
>
>The KEY here are the words "maximize shareholders' investment."
>Corporate law is complex and murky, but this topic has been well
>examined.
>
once again, i'm not disputing that the duty of the board is to act in
the interests of those they represent, including the maximization of
profit, if so required by shareholders. my point is there is no
requirement in law to maximize profits, and that while maximization of
profits might be "customary and usual", it is not required absent such
specification by the shareholders. running a corporation at a loss is
not a crime; running a corporation at break-even, or slightly above
break-even, is not a crime; neither is necessarily actionable in civil
court.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 03:08:07
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On 11 Jun 2006 19:40:54 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com > wrote:
>Barry Jarrett wrote:
>> On 11 Jun 2006 15:45:17 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Basically, the corporation MUST maximize shareholder value. Otherwise,
>> >they can be sued by their shareholders for negligence.
>>
>> that's not what your cite says, nor does your cite reference any
>> *laws* which require the activity you claim.
>Ok Barry,
>
>I'm taking your bait.
<snip >
>Fiduciaries are held by the common law to a high standard in fulfilling
>their stewardship over the assets of others, a standard that ...may not
>be the same as ideal corporate governance. Yet therein lies perhaps
>the greatest strength of Delaware's corporation law. Fiduciaries who
>act faithfully and honestly on behalf of those whose interest they
>represent are indeed granted wide latitude in their efforts to maximize
>shareholders' investment..."
>
>The KEY here are the words "maximize shareholders' investment."
>Corporate law is complex and murky, but this topic has been well
>examined.
>
>Here's a 20+ page link if you're bored: (enjoy)
>http://www.fhe.com/files/tbl_s5084FileUpload/FileName5632/67/fiduciaryDuties-bork102805.pdf
>
>-nimbus
You misunderstand both Barry and the court.
Corporate management who choose to "maximize" profit are "granted wide
latitude" in Delaware (and other states), even though such behavior
may not be "ideal corporate governance." Corporations are free to
include other values in their management philosophy and are not
required to abandon them by statutory or court-made law. That was
Barry's point.
A number of successful coffee business are organized as for-profit
corporations and, while making a very good return on their
investments, choose not to "maximize" their profits, because of other
values they hold dear.
And, for what it is worth, the musings of a court in the introduction
to its decisions are called "dictum" and are not considered law,
although they can be a useful guide to the court's thinking. The best
guide to the binding part of a decision is when they write, "We
hold...."
Marshall
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 17:47:50
From: nimbus
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
This is very off-topic. If you take the time to read through the legal
papers, you'll see that a number of states (20) do not recognize any
social or otherwise ethical actions as justifiable reasoning for the
performance of fiduciary responsibility.
It is based on the very legal foundations of what a Corporation is. I'm
not a business lawyer, and don't claim to be. But if a board is
negligent in their fiduciary responsibilities (and this is open to
interpretation, in court), they can be sued by the shareholders.
The quote says that the overriding responsibility in all but extreme
cases, is to maximize shareholder value. That is the dominant legal
interpretation currently in place in the US.
I cited the American Bar Association (ABA), who in turn cited the
lawyers and judges who interpret the laws. If you want the page numbers
of the thousands of legal opinions go to law school. Every state has
their own laws also.
-nimbus
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2006 15:45:17 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Basically, the corporation MUST maximize shareholder value. Otherwise,
> >they can be sued by their shareholders for negligence.
>
> that's not what your cite says, nor does your cite reference any
> *laws* which require the activity you claim.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 01:26:53
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On 11 Jun 2006 17:47:50 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com > wrote:
>not a business lawyer, and don't claim to be. But if a board is
>negligent in their fiduciary responsibilities (and this is open to
>interpretation, in court), they can be sued by the shareholders.
i don't dispute that at all, but that is a civil liability incurred,
in part, by the individual corporate bylaws, as well as the custodial
nature of the board. afaik, it is not codified in state or federal
law (which is the citation i was requesting).
>
>The quote says that the overriding responsibility in all but extreme
>cases, is to maximize shareholder value.
except the quote does not say that. you're interpreting the quote by
using the modifier "maximize", where the quote says "view to
enhancing". in essence, the quote says, "ought to make a profit,"
while your interpretation is "must maximize profits." not the same
thing, and not the law.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 15:45:17
From: nimbus
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2006 12:43:00 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That is one of the problems with corporations. The law
> >says they are required to maximize profits (without breaking any laws
> >of course - wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
> >
>
> really? got a citation for that?
Citations are easy to come by. How about the American Bar Association,
an article on business law, which says:
"the American Law Institute, perhaps the preeminent body of judges,
lawyers and academics concerned with the progress of American law, was
considering the principles of corporate governance. In Section 2.01 of
the final product of the project, Principles of Corporate Governance:
Analysis and Recommendations, it stated that, with certain limited
exceptions for ethical and eleemosynary considerations, "...a
corporation should have as its objective the conduct of business
activities with a view to enhancing corporate profit and shareholder
gain."
from: http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/8-3money.html
Basically, the corporation MUST maximize shareholder value. Otherwise,
they can be sued by their shareholders for negligence.
>
>
> >Small companies don't have that written into their bylaws...
>
> aren't a number of "small companies" incorporated? ;)
Some are. Some aren't...many are partnerships, or LLC's which are
basically partnerships with the liability protections of
corporations...
-nimbus
>
>
> --barry "corp of one"
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 23:37:08
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On 11 Jun 2006 15:45:17 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com > wrote:
>Basically, the corporation MUST maximize shareholder value. Otherwise,
>they can be sued by their shareholders for negligence.
that's not what your cite says, nor does your cite reference any
*laws* which require the activity you claim.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 21:04:06
From: Hugh Jass
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
Laws are just for poor people.
In practice, wealthy folks and corporations are not really subject to most
laws. The only exception might be when one wealthy person tries to screw
another wealthy person...then there might be a lawsuit or some other action.
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:n3ap821mpaoisr7k9cotpq7rfg3rk45e8j@4ax.com...
> On 11 Jun 2006 15:45:17 -0700, "nimbus" <couzin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Basically, the corporation MUST maximize shareholder value. Otherwise,
> >they can be sued by their shareholders for negligence.
>
> that's not what your cite says, nor does your cite reference any
> *laws* which require the activity you claim.
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 01:45:20
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:04:06 -0400, "Hugh Jass" <* > wrote:
>In practice, wealthy folks and corporations are not really subject to most
>laws. The only exception might be when one wealthy person tries to screw
>another wealthy person...then there might be a lawsuit or some other action.
so, is that parsed as "weathy folks" and "corporations", or "wealthy
folks" and "wealthy corporations"?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 23:27:06
From: Hugh Jass
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:enhp829bq5etuldo41eic45l1fqahg3k4l@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:04:06 -0400, "Hugh Jass" <*> wrote:
>
> >In practice, wealthy folks and corporations are not really subject to
> >most
> >laws. The only exception might be when one wealthy person tries to screw
> >another wealthy person...then there might be a lawsuit or some other
> >action.
>
> so, is that parsed as "weathy folks" and "corporations", or "wealthy
> folks" and "wealthy corporations"?
>
>
The key is "wealthy"....but you already knew that, right?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 04:15:33
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PS; Katrina Coffee- Sound Bags:)
|
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:27:06 -0400, "Hugh Jass" <* > wrote:
>>
>The key is "wealthy"....but you already knew that, right?
well, i was kinda hoping that unwealthy corps wouldn't have to pay
attention to any laws.
--barry "i r 1"
|
|
