He is the CEO of a publicly traded company, and he (or the management board in general) decides on the operational matters. Shareholders can vote him out if they choose to, so he has to keep them happy to some extent, but at the same time they cannot directly involve themselves in everyday, or even some strategic decisions. His share is irrelevant here because a CEO does not need to be a shareholder - their powers are regulated by company bylaws and general legislation (in this case - in the UK).
When it comes to voting him out, his 32% shares give him a lot of power because others would have to form a coalition against him. Which may be difficult because it is dispersed:
Director holdings and significant shareholders information.
www.frontier.co.uk
And this is where it gets tricky. Yes, it was him, or the management board in general. But it does not mean that he can do whatever he wants and that he did it on the whim. The decision was probably made to balance the expectations of the investors and, more importantly, his legal duties. As a CEO, while he is autonomous, he has also fiduciary duty to the company. To
the company, not the shareholders, as this is not the same. If he does not protect the long term financial interests of the company, he might be in trouble legally, so he may be practically unable to postpone a release of a game that is "good enough" to the next FY due to the risk to himself. Interestingly, if the shareholders decided to do something that would threaten the long term health of the company, his duty would be to resist, because, again, he is protecting the interests of the company, not of the shareholders. Now, one could argue that this release was not in the best interest of the company, but proving it before court would be tricky - the numbers are good and up until the next FY the game may be in a much better shape. We will see about the console launch. So far nobody has had any interest in going to court, I guess.
This actually happened to CDPR BTW - due to the botched launch of CP2077 they were sued in the US by a law firm specialising in these types of cases - representing a class of shareholders against management.
At CIG things are much simpler. All companies are private and major shareholders are also directors. They can do whatever the hell they want, including convoluted investment agreements and straight up pillaging of the companies, as long as everybody agrees. Plus, CIG have a network of entities in multiple jurisdictions, which gives them even more freedom to shift risk, tax obligations, shape transfer pricing etc.
And the best part of the deal? People who pay for the upkeep have basically no rights. They are not investors, they are not shareholders, they are dispersed and cannot be even bothered to try to attack the issue from the perspective of consumer rights, as a group.
BTW, Calders may hold around 15% of the shares but I bet my morning coffee that their actual power is disproportionally larger. A special class of shares, more voting rights, additional provisions etc. CIG was bankrupt before they came in, so their negotiating power was enourmous.
- sent you some roberts bucks
robertsspaceindustries.com
