General Discussion

Sanity Claws

(21,846 posts)

5. Because stockholder lawsuits are so hard to bring?

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 12:40 PM

Jan 2012

I haven't had time to research this but I've wondered why shareholders aren't suing/ protesting/ whatever regarding the exorbitant pay that top management gives itself.
Didn't Congress make it harder to sue corporate management, claiming that derivative suits were frivolous?
I think the issue you raised and the one I raised are related and probably have the same basis.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

With all the corporate political contributions, why aren't stockholders hitting the ceiling? [View all] Frustratedlady Jan 2012 OP

They are expecting these "investments" to yield significant returns. SharonAnn Jan 2012 #1

+1 The Traveler Jan 2012 #3

Pretty much the best investments that exist Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #25

Probably because the perception is The Traveler Jan 2012 #2

That's interesting laundry_queen Jan 2012 #4

I don't know if contributions would fall under the "business judgment rule" jsmirman Jan 2012 #7

I wouldn't complain about charitable contributions to the communities... Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #16

Those can be serious end-arounds, though jsmirman Jan 2012 #17

I agree on WS. I am particularly concerned about the mega computer banks trading 24/7. Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #21

It is too long a topic to get into in depth jsmirman Jan 2012 #35

Because stockholder lawsuits are so hard to bring? Sanity Claws Jan 2012 #5

Yes, I've wondered about executive pay, as well. Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #9

For one, stockholders are generally ignorant jsmirman Jan 2012 #6

Folks, some pretty essential information is right here ^^^^^ jsmirman Jan 2012 #18

I have read and stored the information you presented. I appreciate your thoughtful input. Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #31

Good to hear jsmirman Jan 2012 #34

What corporate contributions? Link please. Obama took no corporate money in 2008. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #8

I was referring to the new corporate contributions to political campaigns without limits. I didn't Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #10

Well, there is no evidence of that either - from what I can tell. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #13

Each time I contribute to a candidate Yupster Jan 2012 #37

Really? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #12

The $35,000 a plate donations go to the DNC, don't they? banned from Kos Jan 2012 #14

"Wall St got screwed by Obama" JackRiddler Jan 2012 #15

You spend too much time at ZeroHead. Mark-to-market has been legit since 1993. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #19

Huh? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #33

Because political influence is effectively the corporations' best profit center? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #11

Did they release a listing? joeglow3 Jan 2012 #20

I often wonder about the stockholders. Not only about these contributions but don't they give a jwirr Jan 2012 #22

I agree. Must be that the yearly reports are in such small print and so complicated to read... Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #23

This is one of those differences between corporations and unions gratuitous Jan 2012 #24

Also, the power of shareholders vs the Exec boards is shrinking librechik Jan 2012 #26

We ape each other in many ways. Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #36

It has been illegal for corporations to contribute to federal candidates since 1910. former9thward Jan 2012 #27

And here is the list of recipients from the PAC organized by Goldman Sachs for 2008. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #28

No I don't notice. former9thward Jan 2012 #29

I agree with you. Unfortunately I replied to your post. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #30

If you had a bunch of money in these corporations, you'd be one of the 1% hobbit709 Jan 2012 #32