Texas Judge says Exxon can sue shareholders for submitting proposals they don't like

This is not Pittman's first wild decision. The Fifth Circuit, the appellate court about him, is even wilder so they will likely affirm and may expand, forcing the shareholders to grovel in addition to paying damages.

But the Supremes have really been slapping down the Fifth of late. In a more normal world, I would say that the Fifth Circuit would be feel a little bit chastised and may moderate. But I get the feeling everyone's auditioning now by trying to be the most crazy, and suddenly it's not important to care about what judges above you in the pecking order think of you, so long as the audience of one sees you as crazy enough to get you an appointment to be an associate justice under the Chief Justice Aileen Cannon Court

 

Texas.
(That's it. That's my post)

 

Isn't that how public companies are supposed to work? The more shares that you accumulate, the more influence you exert over the company since you own an increasing amount of the company?

 

This is frightening.

 

Seems weird to sue them considering the following. If they don't have a majority stake in the company, they can make all the proposals they want but it won't change anything since they don't have the power. Not sure how it works but if you got a lot of people that all their shares added up to a majority, then can they take power from the board or does it have to be in control of one person?

 

On this surface this is absurd. Beyond dumb. I wonder if there is a lot more to the story. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense as it is.

 

It makes perfect sense.

This is what “conservative” jurists would call tort reform.

FL probably getting some ideas from this. You really wanna file that homeowners claim, pal? Well how about now your insurance company can sue YOU just for thinking about opening the claim.

 

It also works under conservative guiding principal:

The institutions and majority shareholder are the “donors” in Republican politics, the in-group to a corrupted FedSoc judge. A small activist shareholder is a “rabble rouser”, especially one whose participation is based in ESG. Pretty obvious in-group, out-group dynamic at play. So if you assume the “judge” is corrupted in this way, and we can definitely make that assumption about the 5th circuit, it makes perfect sense.

 

Need a judge to rule we can sue judges for rulings we don't like.