Businessman character and I'm stuck.

So loosely the plot goes like this (for this section).

Two companies, one small (eco tech), one large (international semi-conglommerate) had one CEO (eco tech company) and one major head of the company (the conglommerate) have an affair together. This produced a child (who is the MC), MC grows up with mother as a bastard child. During that time, the CEO of the small company, let’s call him G, managed to buy up a large amount of stock from the large company through using the person he had an affair with, “M”.

MC, realizes that M’s company is in trouble because G owns most of her shares.

So he maneuvers to help G merge with another company to keep the smaller one stable, since most of the way the small company keeps stable is to use the revenue from the larger company. He succeeds and it goes better than planned because it turns into an acquisition, which gives a larger market share.

MC also is trying to force G to give up the shares in the conglommerate, but G isn’t willing to do so.

G has sold a bunch of the eco company shares to relatives to try to prevent the company from being controlled. (If I remember correctly, there is a cap on the number of controlling shares? Something like that.)

So MC finds the shareholders that G has entrusted with the controlling part of the stock, buys the stock from G’s relatives to try to get G to give up his stock in larger company, so MC’s mother can get back her control in the conglommerate. Make a trade–MC gives back the shares he has of the small company so then G will give up his shares in the conglommerate. He’s almost succeeded and is willing to do a trade. He has one person left.

MC doesn’t want to own either company, though there is pressure on both sides to do so. He wants to start his own securities company. (Installing locks, etc). But feels obligated to detangle the companies from one another because he views G as a terrible person who ruined his mother (who jointly owns the conglommerate with her sisters… or used to).

And this is where I’m stuck. G has to retaliate, even if it’s his son. (They have bad blood between them. G was married at the time MC’s mother was pregnant and then abandoned him and his mother.) I just can’t figure out what G would do next since I technically don’t know that much about business.

It’s going too smoothly for MC. He needs one final hiccup that’s not illegal and will not end up with him with a company he doesn’t want to own.

While G is still in control, he can attempt another stock offering which would water down the existing shares. G can pre-leverage the funds needed acquire the new shares, and MC does not have the time to do the same. Time for a miracle!

1 Like

I was thinking along these lines as well, but if G no longer has control in the company, there’s very little way for him to influence the company to hold another stock offering.

For example, let’s say G still owns 5% of the company, but MC now owns 60% (and the rest are owned by M or whomever). At the Board of Directors meeting, if G were to put forth a motion to hold another stock offering, and it were to go to vote, unless G somehow convinces MC or M or other shareholders to vote with him (which, how could he if the whole point of the plot is that MC thinks he’s a terrible person) he’s outta luck.

Another option here is for G to gain more voting rights through proxy (wherein other shareholders essentially allow G to represent their votes). However this has the same problem in that G would have to somehow convince other shareholders to do this for him, which again, why would they if they dislike him?

So yeah, I’m kinda stumped on an option here that is both legal and quickly done. I mean, G could make it his mission to see that the large company fails by poaching suppliers are spreading bad rumours about the company to customers, but this would take a while to execute. Another option would be for G to frame the company for some kind of embezzlement or tax fraud or whatever, but this would be against the law and therefore not what the poster wants.

Wish I could be of more help :confused:

Signed, an averagely intelligent business student in university

I know the company they acquisitioned had embezzling, which is how they struck a deal with the company to stop the merger, and do an acquisition instead. MC and G technically know about it, but I don’t think they reported it. Technically it wasn’t done by them, though, it was done by the previous company owners before the merger turned acquisition.

(I don’t know about business law in the US for this part–one of those things where the characters did it and I was like huh?).

Can this be used against MC, since he was overseeing the acquisition originally (from an outside company, which he’s now quit from so he can join his mother’s company–though he wants to start his own security company (locks and bolts, home cameras, etc rather than financial securities)), even if G knew about it? Or since they didn’t commit the crime it’s moot?

MC is playing with fire, as I see it since he’s trying to manipulate two separate company politics. His mother’s company (which is matrilineally owned and the larger company–international semi-conglommerate.) and his father’s company (It’s an eco tech company), which he’s trying to get stable to be independent from his mother’s company as a favor to his half-sister. (His half sister, though, at this point isn’t pleased with him, but I don’t understand why, since he’s basically not destroying his father’s company in consideration of her… but then she never got involved in her father’s company besides holding some shares for him).

bump.

Yeah, still stuck.

Sorry for the slow reply!

I’d say this embezzling thing is probably your best bet to add some conflict to MC’s story line. Now I’m not a law student, but I assume that, because the MC knew about the company embezzling (regardless of whether they had anything to do with it) they could be legally punished for choosing not to report it. Since G also knew about the embezzling, he could frame the MC by telling authorities about the embezzlement or perhaps anonymously request that the company be audited. Speaking of auditing though, if the company is incorporated (which I assume it is), it’s required to be audited annually. Depending on how long this embezzlement has been going on, I’d be surprised that no auditors have discovered it yet. Most auditors are quite thorough in their investigations of company financials and it’s rare that they don’t detect such large scale financial dishonesty.

So anyways, that’s my 2 cents :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thank you. That sounds like it would work.

The original eco tech company hadn’t gone completely digital, so their receipts, etc were a mess when MC and FMC encountered the company. It took months for them to sort out from what the story says. I don’t know if that makes it more plausible.