Comment by soganess

Comment by soganess 3 days ago

I don't know the first thing wrt how 23andMe has its governance and voting setup, but the letter seems to imply the CEO has majority power or, at least, a large enough plurality that it is a one-person-show:

> Because of that difference and because of your concentrated voting power, we believe that it is in the best interests of the Company’s shareholders that we resign

EDIT: But that brings up a different question: If you have majority voting power, why try to take the company private (as it has been suggested by others here)?

vineyardmike 3 days ago

> EDIT: But that brings up a different question: If you have majority voting power, why try to take the company private (as it has been suggested by others here)?

1. Less legal oversight and paperwork.

2. I don’t know the terms of the buyout, but if this means the CEO, family, friends, etc (“insiders”) become the new shareholders, then any future upside will be distributed to insiders not the open market.

Reply View 2 replies

IG_Semmelweiss 2 days ago

You can have company control without having even a majority.
This is similar to what zuckerberg is doing with Meta. Supervoting Class A shares vs common shares, etc.
The arrangement is completely up to the governing docs of the entity.

Reply View | 1 reply
- vineyardmike 2 days ago
  
  The CEO does currently control the company without a majority.
  Having less legal oversight generally refers to paperwork that needs to be done for the SEC.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

kelnos 2 days ago

> If you have majority voting power, why try to take the company private (as it has been suggested by others here)?

I don't know their governance structure, but the CEO may have a majority of votes, but not own a majority of the actual shares. Being able to take the company private would give her (and her other investors) full economic control as well as voting control.

This is risky ground, of course. Even with voting control, legally the CEO cannot screw over the minority shareholders.

Reply View 0 replies

saghm 2 days ago

> But that brings up a different question: If you have majority voting power, why try to take the company private (as it has been suggested by others here)?

Also the question of "what powers does the board even have then?"

Reply View 0 replies

s1artibartfast 3 days ago

>But that brings up a different question: If you have majority voting power, why try to take the company private (as it has been suggested by others here)?

voting power dictates control. Ownership dictates rights to profits. you can have full control with 51% ownership, but you still only get 51% of profits.

Reply View 0 replies