Comment by SoftTalker
12 hours ago
If they feel it's damaging to have it public, then it could be argued that selling it would be irresponsible. I'm not arguing it is or it isn't, but reputation has value and management of it is part of what shareholders expect.
But this isn’t reputation management. This is retribution for past affronts. This action in no way retroactively protects them from what was said.
I think he's just saying the case they would make to avoid being sued for breaching their fiduciary responsibility. Not that it's the actual reason. But Idk.
It's hard to imagine how it could be damaging to ABC to have it public under someone else's brand.