This seems totally insane to me. The lawsuit is arguing that directors not only have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to increase the value of their Meta holdings, but also of other stocks they may own.
The consequences of that line of thinking are scary. I'm sure the vast majority of shareholders of most US companies own ICE cars. If a company decides to put a lot of effort into, for example, cheaper batteries, could shareholders sue because the company is devaluing an asset most of them own?
This totally smells like a lawyer trying a random, BS theory in the hope that something "sticks" in order to make their mark.
The consequences of that line of thinking are scary. I'm sure the vast majority of shareholders of most US companies own ICE cars. If a company decides to put a lot of effort into, for example, cheaper batteries, could shareholders sue because the company is devaluing an asset most of them own?
This totally smells like a lawyer trying a random, BS theory in the hope that something "sticks" in order to make their mark.