• mormund@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    6 months ago

    So you are suing … the people that partially own your company? Only in America can you sue someone without any good reason and still win by default because you have more cash on hand. Cash the defendant partially provided no less.

    • StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      Presumably the “reason”/standing is that shareholders talking about climate change might reduce the company’s value hurting the other shareholders

      • fckreddit@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        The funny part would be that they actually might win because share value is more important than the environment.

  • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is due to activist investors.

    That’s people who’ll buy up enough stock to be allowed at shareholders meetings and then they’ll fucking DRILL the C-suite non-stop, derailing the meetings.

    It’s a good strategy, even if it forces you in bed with evil. Make the rest of the shareholders undeniably knowledgeable and then theyll have to contend with shame or don the moniker themselves. Or start demanding ethical business practices themselves, which is what the lawsuit is ultimately trying to avoid.

    • davel@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s not worth my time & effort to look into these particular investors’ true motivations, but as a rule they’re no more or less to be trusted than the C-suite itself. In almost all cases this is just a game to these people for topping off their Scrooge McDuck swimming pools.