[nickff]

The voting issue is problematic, but the limits on shareholder class-actions seems like a good idea. Do you know of any shareholder class-action lawsuit that actually benefited the shareholders? They only ever seem to benefit the plaintiff lawyers pursuing the case.

[lenerdenator]

That's because they often don't go far enough, and that's because of limits on things like shareholder class-actions.

If you haven't wiped out their corporate savings and sent the stock price tumbling, you haven't really done anything to get the needed recompense and to discourage the behavior in the future. Right now, many companies are effectively sole proprietorships or partnerships with window dressing made to look like there's real accountability. If it becomes impossible to oust the CEO, you're not a shareholder, you're a bagholder.

[tyre]

But that’s the thing. In that case, the shareholders are the ones who were harmed and now they’re winning by…making their investment worth far less?

What you really need are lawsuits against individuals to be held accountable, otherwise it’s a lose-lose for shareholders.

[lenerdenator]

Unfortunately, articles of incorporation preclude that sort of thing.

Perhaps after a few high-profile cases, IPOs won't be structured to give absolute control to one person.

That, or you make the ousting of the execs in charge the settlement instead of massive monetary damages.