Per the Reuters article [0], it sounds like Ellison had a vested interest (of the financial variety) in Oracle acquiring NetSuite at a premium unreasonably higher than NetSuite's actual value, so that's why the shareholders are suing him.
There wont be consequences. What wework's adam did is unethical but not illegal. Same for oracle.
The difference between both however is enormous. I suspect that for in Adam wework deal(s), information hardly reached directors and certainly not shareholders.
With Oracle , everyone knew about the premium paid. And everyone , is a professional money manager and had multiple times the time to shut down the deal. They made mistake after mistake: with CEO selection, with acquisition strategy, with BoD selection, with DD, and price paid.
Shareholders were asleep at the wheel. Now they want to point fingers at someone else.
In both cases there was some unethical on behavior, but that does not make it illegal and recoverable in court
I think saying that the rent is market rate doesn’t really eliminate the transfer of value away from WeWork shareholders. First, you can’t exactly calculate market rate, and rates are normally determined by a negotiation between multiple parties. When you own a rental property, you take on a risk of vacancy while seeking tenants who pay your idea of market rate. You will face the choice of taking a lower rent vs. staying vacant and holding out for more. If Adam Neumann is getting reliably paid a healthy market rate by WeWork, and WeWork is taking the hit from the vacancies, he’s getting one over on WeWork’s shareholders. Lease obligations are going to be paid out before equity. Perhaps that’s the whole point of the arrangement.