Sorry, I thought the person who was assumed dead was the father, not the character receiving the shares. If the person receiving the shares was the one assumed dead, it makes way more sense as to why it was less believable. It’s still possible but, unless things were set-up in a way that already assumed that everyone would be dead, except for that one guy, who is still totally alive but is going to be missing for a while, then it’s highly unlikely.
Then again, this is a universe where magic exists, so a wizard did it.

Depending on how long MC was presumed dead, and if there were any issues with either his estate, or of his father, the shares could be held by the personal representative of either estate for quite some time. If there was any less than 7 years between when his father died, and when he came back, then it’s completely reasonable that he would be entitled to those shares. The longer it is after that seven years, the less likely it is that he would have the shares. The shares could’ve also been held by another entity, like a family trust or holding company. And as long as a trustee, or a controlling interest in the holding company, was still alive and willing, they could give him back the shares.

But: He wouldn’t have an officer or director position in the main company if he was presumed dead. Directors need to be re-appointed every year, and depending on the set-up of the corporation, you sometimes need to be a director in order to be an officer, or the officers need to be reappointed every year. A position like “chairman” was likely appointed to someone else rather quickly after the presumed death. Then again, it might also have the wildest bylaws ever written, likely by a wizard.

It probably was just bad writing for the sake of a forced story line, but the board can (generally) vote out the chair, and the shares going from a deceased person to another entity is called transmission. Transmissions do generally require the directors to sign a resolution or two though, and if they voted him out as the chair, then they likely would do what they could to prevent the transfer of the shares.

And even if they booted him as chair of the board, it likely wouldn’t have much of a financial effect.

Honestly, it’s possible, but I’ve never seen the show, and I don’t know if they break down the corporate structure.

Owning a majority of the stocks in a corporation, doesn’t automatically mean you have any real power.
Having the majority of shares, even if they are voting shares, doesn’t mean you are part of the board of directors. And if the shares that MC held were retractable and redeemable, even if they are voting shares, then the board can force the shareholder to redeem (aka sell) them back to the corporation, often at a pre-set price.

“But, the voting shareholders decide who’s on the board, and he had the majority of the shares!” I heard you say. Again, does he actually have voting shares, or just the majority of the shares issued?
Do we know what constitutes a quorum of the shareholders according to the bylaws of the corporation? AKA if he has 51% of the shares, but they need persons holding at least 60% of the voting shares in order to hold a vote, can he get enough shareholders together to hold a vote to change the directors before the directors vote that need needs to redeem his shares?

Was he completely forced to sell/redeem his shares, or was his officer role just removed? (aka, he’s no longer the President, the Secretary-Treasurer, or whatever). Shareholders are a step removed from choosing who the Officers are. Generally, Shareholders choose the Directors, the Directors choose the officers, and the Officers are the ones who issue the shares (even though they are often compelled to sign the share certificates by the Directors, the bylaws, or other resolutions).
So if he owns the majority of the shares, and was an officer, then he could very easily be removed as an officer, assuming that there wasn’t a stipulation in his original appointment. Again, I would need to see the articles, the bylaws, any Unanimous Shareholder Agreements, resolutions, and other agreements.

Also, everything I wrote might not be valid in your jurisdiction. Don’t take the late-night ramblings of anyone online as legal advice.

That’s 8 keystrokes, nice!

The law, in basically everything.

Some places give you a whole week to vote, and the polls are open 12 hours a day. So if you something happens and your plans are ruined, you have ample time to still make it to the polls.

You can block them in Lemmy without the use of an ap.

He’s still a babe.

If you use a browser, you know that the formatting works as intended, and you don’t have anything thing installed on your phone.

If you use an app, you may have a layout you prefer, and you may have a new feature or two that you like.

If that’s what you prefer, may I recommend the place Where Life Makes Sense instead of “worse Winnipeg”?

Yeah, I think Lemmy and Mastodon should be made even more separate than they are currently, they are different platforms with different styles, goals, and uses.

You need to use a carot/arrow on both sides of the word to use superscript on lemmy.

^this^ becomes ^this

Edit: Header removed: maybe we shouldn’t encourage the use of headers.

Not clickbait at all.

Wet-bulb is the combination of heat and humidity, and it is deadly in 6 hours. The article is about the first time they have lab tested the conditions on humans to determine the exact numbers, instead of just using the 35C estimate that we have been using.

Reader mode of Firefox helped me be able to read the content of the article, despite the unacceptable layout.

Here’s the short version:
Wet-bulb weather is when, because of a combination of humidity and heat, you can’t naturally cool off with things like sweat.
There are certain combinations where the weather only needs to be 25.8C for a health younger person, or 21.9C for an elderly person for “wet-bulb” to be achieved.
Climate change is real, and it’s causing more instances of “wet-bulb” weather.
Outside activities may not be possible in the summer in certain parts of the world, people will die, the rich will move.

That doesn’t make it any less awful.

Thankfully, a lot of browsers have a reader mode to undo such sins.

That’s some awful website design.

an off-topic post.

How is this sad, or a story?

Point 2 is exactly why it is being down-voted. A post about how the Fediverse is toxic to one race/skin colour shouldn’t be telling people of a different race/skin colour to “post less”.

Discrimination based on race isn’t welcome, no matter who it’s against.

Since this is just a draft, you should change #2 to just “think before you post”.

It can make sense in certain circumstances, like in BLM rallies telling white people that it wasn’t our stage to speak makes sense, but telling people of a certain skin colour to “post less” in general is racist as fuck.