9 ms·

Yes, from https://www.txse.com/solutions https://www.txse.com/solutions: TXSE's goal is to provide greater alignment with issuers and investors and address t

Yes, from https://www.txse.com/solutions https://www.txse.com/solutions: TXSE's goal is to provide greater alignment with issuers and investors and address the high cost of going and staying public. The alignment part translates IMO to avoiding political / social science policy issues like avoiding affirmative action listing requirements like the Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules that was just recently repealed: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/01/12/fifth-circuit-vacates-secs-approval-of-nasdaq-board-diversity-rules https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/01/12/fifth-circuit-vac.... So it is as one might imagine, the formation was probably for similar reasons why owners are moving their company registration out of Delaware.

abirch 11mo ago
Delaware protects the shareholders. It's uncertain what will happen in Texas. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-01/texas-tempts-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-01/texas-... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-03/texas-tempts-meta https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-03/texas-...
- username332211 11mo ago
  I'm sorry but what? Delaware law exclusively protects the interests of the board of directors. It allows for a unique provision - the hilariously misnamed "Shareholders Rights Plan" that enable a board of directors to issue shares as they please, in order to make sure every attempt at takeover isn't against the interests of the directors. The only check on the power of the board in a Delaware corporation is the Delaware court of chancellery.
  - caminante 11mo ago
    The irony is that the Levine article the parent provided argues that DE did the exact opposite of shareholder wishes! > it is weird that Tesla’s management and board of directors and (a large majority of) shareholders all agreed that Musk should get paid $55.8 billion for creating $600 billion of shareholder value, and he did do that, and he got paid that, and a judge overruled that decision and ordered him to give back the money. I can see why Musk — and Tesla’s board, and its shareholders — would find that objectionable! They’re trying to run a company here.
- groundzeros2015 11mo ago
  The recent story involving Elon's compensation package has also put into question how seriously Delaware upholds business contracts.
hopelite 11mo ago
[flagged]
- Muromec 11mo ago
  EU member states have more sovereignty than US states by a big margin. There isnt even a federal tax in EU.
  - avgDev 11mo ago
    President is sending national guard troops from Texas to other states........and this guy says this lol. EU countries definitely have more sovereignty than US states. I really don't know how people can be this confidently wrong.
    - hopelite 11mo ago
      [flagged]
- derbOac 11mo ago
  The "real reason" people "freaked out" about Trump dismantling agencies is that he was and has been ignoring the law by fiat and not executing the law as is his constitutionally defined role. It would be one thing to veto a refunding of the DoEd, to approve a dismantling of the DoEd; it's another to unilaterally dismantle institutions that have been enacted into law by Congress. The DoEd is no more unconstitutional than the DoD or any other cabinet-level institution. I think it's fair to have a hard discussion about the effectiveness of or need for the DoEd, but the way to do that is in Congress, not by fiat by the president. The way the Trump administration has approached it IMHO is grossly unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers. The only semi-reasonable rationale I can think of is that Congress is implicitly approving of or voting on the president's actions by not impeaching him, but that seems like an unreasonably high bar, equates lack of action with active approval, and it also infringes on the power of the Congress that enacted the law. As someone else here on HN noted recently: what is the point of anything pertaining to congressional vote procedures, veto authority, overrides, and so forth if the president ignores, and is allowed to ignore, the laws that are passed anyway?
underlipton 11mo ago
In a structurally-biased environment, the loss of policies that counteract that bias does not allow companies to "avoid" politics and social science; it allows them to take the side in favor of the structurally-biased status quo. Just so we're clear about what that is.

abirch 11mo ago

Delaware protects the shareholders. It's uncertain what will happen in Texas. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-01/texas-tempts-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-01/texas-... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-03/texas-tempts-meta https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-03/texas-...

username332211 11mo ago
I'm sorry but what? Delaware law exclusively protects the interests of the board of directors. It allows for a unique provision - the hilariously misnamed "Shareholders Rights Plan" that enable a board of directors to issue shares as they please, in order to make sure every attempt at takeover isn't against the interests of the directors. The only check on the power of the board in a Delaware corporation is the Delaware court of chancellery.
- caminante 11mo ago
  The irony is that the Levine article the parent provided argues that DE did the exact opposite of shareholder wishes! > it is weird that Tesla’s management and board of directors and (a large majority of) shareholders all agreed that Musk should get paid $55.8 billion for creating $600 billion of shareholder value, and he did do that, and he got paid that, and a judge overruled that decision and ordered him to give back the money. I can see why Musk — and Tesla’s board, and its shareholders — would find that objectionable! They’re trying to run a company here.
groundzeros2015 11mo ago
The recent story involving Elon's compensation package has also put into question how seriously Delaware upholds business contracts.

hopelite 11mo ago

[flagged]

Muromec 11mo ago
EU member states have more sovereignty than US states by a big margin. There isnt even a federal tax in EU.
- avgDev 11mo ago
  President is sending national guard troops from Texas to other states........and this guy says this lol. EU countries definitely have more sovereignty than US states. I really don't know how people can be this confidently wrong.
  - hopelite 11mo ago
    [flagged]
derbOac 11mo ago
The "real reason" people "freaked out" about Trump dismantling agencies is that he was and has been ignoring the law by fiat and not executing the law as is his constitutionally defined role. It would be one thing to veto a refunding of the DoEd, to approve a dismantling of the DoEd; it's another to unilaterally dismantle institutions that have been enacted into law by Congress. The DoEd is no more unconstitutional than the DoD or any other cabinet-level institution. I think it's fair to have a hard discussion about the effectiveness of or need for the DoEd, but the way to do that is in Congress, not by fiat by the president. The way the Trump administration has approached it IMHO is grossly unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers. The only semi-reasonable rationale I can think of is that Congress is implicitly approving of or voting on the president's actions by not impeaching him, but that seems like an unreasonably high bar, equates lack of action with active approval, and it also infringes on the power of the Congress that enacted the law. As someone else here on HN noted recently: what is the point of anything pertaining to congressional vote procedures, veto authority, overrides, and so forth if the president ignores, and is allowed to ignore, the laws that are passed anyway?

underlipton 11mo ago

In a structurally-biased environment, the loss of policies that counteract that bias does not allow companies to "avoid" politics and social science; it allows them to take the side in favor of the structurally-biased status quo. Just so we're clear about what that is.