Like, they're promoting a political agenda that's detrimental to the shareholders. At some point sacrificing shareholder value for political ends has to be a violation of duty to shareholders.
-
-
-
While that's true, it's a losing case. That approach is predicated on breach of fiduciary duty, which is almost impossible to prove. That's why I suggested going with a minority oppression suit, which has a much lower bar to hurdle.
-
But how does censoring minority opinions become a shareholder suit?
-
That's the crux of the issue. All voting shareholders have certain legal rights as defined by the corporate bylaws and state law. A minority oppression claim alleges violation of those on specific grounds...
-
Shareholder oppression is typically when majority shareholder conduct that substantially defeats reasonable expectations of the minority holder when he joined the venture. This is vs an objective standard.
-
The other criteria is burdensome, harsh, or wrongful conduct as a lack of probity or fair dealing in corporate affairs. Actions prejudiced to favor the majority against the minority via unfair dealing. This, I think, is where the gotcha is.
-
The oppressive conduct criteria are not narrowly defined.
-
I'm seeing a possible breach of duty claim still, but I don't see how censoring views on twitter amounts to suppression of minority shareholders exactly. They're not doing anything specifically to suppress shareholders, just to minority political views in general
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.