I just re-watched this movie. (It’s the 2015 movie with Robert De Niro and Anne Hathaway).
Hathaway plays Jules Ostin, the founder of what has become a sizeable internet fashion company. And one of the main plot points in the story is the possibility that she will turn over the company to an outside CEO.
In the movie, Cameron, her Vice President, tells her that “they” would like the company to have a CEO. A list of potential CEO’s is produced and Ostin meets with them to decide if she wants to turn over the company to one of them. In the end, she decides not to.
I have questions.
Who is “they”? Who were the people who thought it would be a good idea to bring in an outside CEO? Stockholders? Bankers?
Who owns the company? It’s made clear in the movie that the final decision about whether or not an outside CEO is hired is Ostin’s. There appears to be nobody who can tell her she has to bring in a CEO. This implies she owns the company. But that raises the question of who these people are who raised the issue of having a CEO.
What’s Cameron’s role? In the movie, Cameron is portrayed as Ostin’s loyal supporter. But he is the one who brings the message about the CEO to her. Why did “they” apparently choose to meet with Cameron on this issue and have him convey the message to Ostin rather than meet with Ostin directly?
The movie makes it clear that if Ostin had brought in a CEO, she would have been working for him. How would that work if she owned the company? Would there have to be a buy out of her ownership? Who would be the new owners?
Sorry If my questions are unclear but the movie itself was unclear on these issues, which is why I’m asking. And I realize this is a movie and these things only existed to move the plot along. But I’m trying to understand the real world equivalents to what was happening.
I havent seen the movie, so I may be missing important details. But presumably the investors are giving pressure. They control whether or not the company gets more investment from them, and probably also have equity. This company needed money at some point, and the investors were brought in for that.
As to why they are using a messenger in Cameron, probably just easier for the audience to understand without introducing more characters.
So Ostin owned the company but the investors had control over the outside money supply that she needed to continue operating? This means the investors can put pressure on her to do something but they can’t simply give her an order to do it. Okay, that would explain some of the situation.
She may have 100% or 51% of the voting shares but be dependent on continued investment (possibly loans or even non-voting stock) to keep afloat.
I have a friend (well the child of a friend) who is nominally the CFO of a company which is controlled by the CEO, but highly dependent on funding by investors. It is closer to the startup phase than the company in the movie though. Anyway the CFO (an attractive, charming woman in her 20s) deals with the investors. The CEO/founder is a complete asshole, very abrasive and arrogant.
BTW, this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I’ve seen Hallmark Christmas movies that are less predictable.
In many cases a person founds a company, and then seeks out investors to grow it. These investors usually are given equity and seats on the board in exchange for the money. The founders may control 51% or less of the voting stock, but they can still commonly be referred to as owners. They may not be the sole owner, but they still own and run the company.
Having not seen the movie I can’t guess what the actual details are disclosed, or if the movie makers just left if vague. But it’s common that investors push out or aside the founders in favor of more experienced industry insiders if they fear their investment is going to get lost due to inept management.