>>19576752Corporate mergers and acquisitions don't ever need to be your personal definition of "up and up"
>don't you think there might be something there, dude bro?is not a legal argument
>>19576774Not true at all but that won't stop retards like you from thinking it is. There is no legal requirement to
>maximize profits for shareholders.if the company believes that it could result in long term harm to goodwill or customer satisfaction/retention. Plenty of stores like Costco could make more profit if they expanded their liquor offerings, or started selling porno magazines, or (insert other high margin item here). They are allowed to do what they believe is best for business, the only requirement is that that they need to be able to explain themselves.
As much as retarded leftists wish it were the case, it simply isn't the case that corporations are required by law to do anything and everything to make every dime of profits they can.
