[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
Two proposals, one replacing Zuckerberg as chairman and the other limiting his voting power, failed at Facebook's annual shareholder meeting. (Photo Aurelien Meunier / Getty Images)
Getty Images
Topline: A group of Facebook activist shareholders tried to fail to restrict the power of CEO Mark Zuckerberg over the company at its annual shareholder meeting on Thursday, while shareholders had broadly rejected two measures that would have upset the company's structure. company and limited the control of Zuckerberg.
- A group of activist shareholders proposed two measures: one would have replaced Zuckerberg as chairman of the board and the other would have reduced his voting power.
- Both proposals failed.
- Zuckerberg dodged questions from shareholders who asked him directly whether he would be willing to give up some of his voting power.
What exactly do shareholders want? After years of scandal ranging from data leaks and confidentiality to spreading misinformation about the platform, a small group of activist shareholders led by Trillium Asset Management hedge fund say Zuckerberg was not held responsible.
"Given the size of society and its recent mistakes, the responsibility for change can not be left alone", wrote Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change, a non-profit badociation, has Quick business op / ed.
When asked if he was willing to give up some of his power on Facebook, Zuckerberg instead talked about government regulations, thus avoiding the issue, according to Zuckerberg. Internal business.
What did the shareholders propose? One measure would have replaced Zuckerberg by an independent chairman of the company's board. Activists pushing the measure say as CEO and chairman, Zuckerberg has little control.
The other proposal would have radically changed the structure of the company's shares. Currently, each share held by Zuckerberg represents 10 votes. The shareholders wanted each Zuckerberg share to count for one vote.
In practice, this means that Zuckerberg has the greatest power over which investor proposals are adopted. Since the CEO himself has voted against both proposals, they have no chance of succeeding.
">
Two proposals, one replacing Zuckerberg as chairman and the other limiting his voting power, failed at Facebook's annual shareholder meeting. (Photo Aurelien Meunier / Getty Images)
Getty Images
Topline: A group of Facebook activist shareholders tried to fail to restrict the power of CEO Mark Zuckerberg over the company at its annual shareholder meeting on Thursday, while shareholders had broadly rejected two measures that would have upset the company's structure. company and limited the control of Zuckerberg.
- A group of activist shareholders proposed two measures: one would have replaced Zuckerberg as chairman of the board and the other would have reduced his voting power.
- Zuckerberg dodged questions from shareholders who asked him directly whether he would be willing to give up some of his voting power.
What exactly do shareholders want? After years of scandal ranging from data leaks and confidentiality to misinformation on the platform, a small group of shareholder activists led by Trillium Asset Management hedge fund claims that Zuckerberg has not been held responsible.
"Given the size of society and its recent mistakes, the responsibility for change can not be left to its own devices," said Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change, a non-profit organization. Quick business op / ed.
When asked if he was willing to give up some of his power on Facebook, Zuckerberg instead talked about government regulations, thus avoiding the issue, according to Zuckerberg. Internal business.
What did the shareholders propose? One measure would have replaced Zuckerberg by an independent chairman of the company's board. Activists pushing the measure say as CEO and chairman, Zuckerberg has little control.
The other proposal would have radically changed the structure of the company's shares. Currently, each share held by Zuckerberg represents 10 votes. The shareholders wanted each Zuckerberg share to count for one vote.
In practice, this means that Zuckerberg has the greatest power over which investor proposals are adopted. Since the CEO himself has voted against both proposals, they have no chance of succeeding.
