Are they actively attempting a hostile takeover and the board thinks that they'll hurt the company? Then I think that'd be legal. Otherwise I don't see how you could make a legally defensible argument around diluting shareholders just because of their beliefs
They were elected to the board by shareholders. That's entirely different than a hostile takeover. You can't say "this is not in the interest of the shareholders" when the shareholders voted for it
then lets dilute the shareholders who voted for it as theyh are clearly idealogically driven and actively hostile to the company itself or its profitability
Well, I guess if you’re a moral relativist that might be the case. I mean, why not burn the rest of the planet down for temporary profits? Why not enslave children in the Congo? It benefits the shareholders after all. How about murder and torture for hire? These decisions just seem so arbitrary. *shrug*
maybe i think climate activist shareholders in energy companies are hostile / bad actors. Can i selectively dilute them out?