Suppose a CEO receives a significant financial offer that is so significant, it determines if the company goes into production or goes bankrupt. Does the SEC require the CEO to inform the stockholders of such a significant offer? After all, it certainly does influence the value of the stockholders stock.
Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA) are no problem for privately held companies, but how do they work if a company is publicly traded? NDAs would be appropriate if the subject of them was a new product being developed, that the company wants to be kept secret. But are NDAs appropriate, or even legal, if the subject is about financial offers that determine if the company goes into production or if it goes bankrupt?
Paul Elio’s decisions are to a certain extent determined by his own personal feelings. An example of this is the Elgin gauges. It might be illegal to make a company decision to honor a family member when the CEO is suppose to make decisions based on what is best for the company and shareholders. I wonder if this played any part in his decision to not used the Elgin gauges. Likewise, it might even be illegal for Paul Elio to turn down crucial funding on the bases that he does not like the country from which it is coming. Remember he is very pro American. I wonder if it is illegal for a CEO to refuse critical funding because he would no longer own controlling interest.
Some might say it does not make any difference because Paul Elio owns controlling number of shares and his decision is all that counts. This might be true, but the SEC rules might require disclosure of this type of information on any publicly traded stock, regardless of share distribution.
Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA) are no problem for privately held companies, but how do they work if a company is publicly traded? NDAs would be appropriate if the subject of them was a new product being developed, that the company wants to be kept secret. But are NDAs appropriate, or even legal, if the subject is about financial offers that determine if the company goes into production or if it goes bankrupt?
Paul Elio’s decisions are to a certain extent determined by his own personal feelings. An example of this is the Elgin gauges. It might be illegal to make a company decision to honor a family member when the CEO is suppose to make decisions based on what is best for the company and shareholders. I wonder if this played any part in his decision to not used the Elgin gauges. Likewise, it might even be illegal for Paul Elio to turn down crucial funding on the bases that he does not like the country from which it is coming. Remember he is very pro American. I wonder if it is illegal for a CEO to refuse critical funding because he would no longer own controlling interest.
Some might say it does not make any difference because Paul Elio owns controlling number of shares and his decision is all that counts. This might be true, but the SEC rules might require disclosure of this type of information on any publicly traded stock, regardless of share distribution.
