Bible.com Investor Sues Company For Lack Of Profit

The board of Bible.com claims that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than to make money on the domain name, but an angry shareholder disagrees. From the article: "James Solakian filed the lawsuit in Delaware's Chancery Court against the board of Bible.com for breaching their duty by refusing to sell the site or run the company in a profitable way. The lawsuit cites a valuation done by a potential purchaser that estimated bible.com could be worth more than dictionary.com, which recently sold for more than $100 million."

Comments

who'd have thought..

[Custard Horse]

So, there is no prophet?

It's easy, actually

[vadim_t]

All you need to make a camel pass through a needle's eye is to grind it very finely.

He should read his own website

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

1 Corinthians 6:7
Lawsuits among Christians are a no-no in the Bible.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact

[AnonymousClown]

Chick-fil-a does it - they're not open on Sundays, treat their workers well, environmental stewardship, and other things that are branded "liberal" by the Fox News crowd and yet, they make boat loads of money doing things that others would think would eat into profitability and make one uncompetitive.

As a matter of fact, you can

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally companies do have responsibilities to their shareholders. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Shareholders are entirely within their legal rights to sue their companies for failing to make decisions which are likely to make the company profitable.

Maybe you think that on some sort of social level that isn't how it should work. To a lot of uneducated people, investing is paramount to gambling: you invest, you accept the risk, and then you win or lose, and that's it. But in the real world, investing is very different, and plenty of legal responsibility is heaped upon the board of directors to act in the investor's best financial interest.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can

[TheRaven64]

Not quite. Legally, the company is required to act in accordance with its charter. Typically, these say something like 'make as much money as possible by engaging in business X'. Sometimes they don't mention money at all, or in the case of companies that do the triple bottom line thing mention money as one of the objectives. When you invest in a company, you are saying that you agree with the company's mission.

Simply not doing the thing that makes the most profit for the shareholders is never grounds for a successful lawsuit. If it were, then every company performing below the top few percent of the stock market would be legally obliged to liquidate its assets and invest them all in one of the top companies.

Re:There's an easy fix for this

[cgenman]

Supposedly, the "investor" was given his shares because of a $400,000 debt that the owners could not pay back. Further, the site hasn't been developed because this shareholder has been fighting with the board about control over the company. So I'm guessing he would like to buy up the majority of the stock, if it were possible. Though I doubt he could dump his shares for the 400k they cost him.

Of course Bible.com is a bad business idea to begin with. Everyone has a bible, and there are basically billions of searchable bibles online. Religion tends to be face-to-face, or at least televised. Money in religion comes from donations, not advertising. And, of course, a domain name is not a business idea, it is a business asset. Without a real idea, there isn't a real business.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact

[MaWeiTao]

It's not "liberal" when an individual or corporation decides to do these things. It's considered "liberal" when the government forces individuals to do these things, or extracts money from individuals and corporations in order to do these things themselves.

Many conservatives participate in a lot of charity, I'm not sure why you consider those two things to be mutually exclusive.