[clouddrover]

So you do think might makes right. That's sad.

[kortilla]

It’s not sad, voting by ownership stake is how nearly all companies are controlled.

This shareholder should completely have had his view steamrolled from a “what he thinks the company should do” perspective. However, he is definitely entitled to file a lawsuit if he thinks there was governance fraud.

[clouddrover]

And he did have his court case and for now he's won it (I'm sure it will be appealed). It seems like the legal system is working as intended in this instance.

So what are we even talking about?

[kortilla]

Claiming that we think it’s sad that the 9 share holder has as much say as a million share holder is stupid.

This has nothing to do with him having a say in how the company is run.

[clouddrover]

What has "say" in this case is the law. That's why they had a court case. That's how it works.

Arguing that wealth puts you above the rule of law is what's stupid.

[kortilla]

And nobody said that. People are lamenting that having 9 shares gives you less say in anything

[clouddrover]

> And nobody said that.

That is precisely what's being said. Re-read the thread from the beginning.

> People are lamenting that having 9 shares gives you less say in anything

That's not what "lamenting" means.

[tim333]

I think it's more that a company should be controlled by the majority of its owners rather than a rando with 0.000001%

[clouddrover]

What's controlling the company here is the law. Do you think Tesla or Musk are above the rule of law?

[tim333]

No but the law can be imperfect.

[clouddrover]

What, you mean just like how Tesla and Musk can be imperfect? Maybe that's why they lost this court case.

Maybe it's why there was a court case in the first place.