I'm all in favor for workers getting paid more, but I can understand the brother's perspective. Shareholders, especially ones who own 40% of the company, have a reasonable expectation that the company CEO will be acting in their financial interests. In this case, the CEO was acting in a way that is favorable to his employees' interests, but detrimental to the interests of the shareholders. Given that the CEO legally has a Fiduciary duty to the shareholders to protect their best interests, I can understand the brother filing suit.
If the CEO also owned 100% of the company, or if the CEO was helping the employees with his own personal money, and not the company's money, there's no problem of course. But that isn't what he's doing. A cynical interpretation would be that the CEO is giving up 60% of the profits, in return for national fame and glory, while the brother is forced to give up 40% of the profits and gets nothing at all.
If the CEO also owned 100% of the company, or if the CEO was helping the employees with his own personal money, and not the company's money, there's no problem of course. But that isn't what he's doing. A cynical interpretation would be that the CEO is giving up 60% of the profits, in return for national fame and glory, while the brother is forced to give up 40% of the profits and gets nothing at all.