I unwittingly had shares in a company that made fentanyl before the crisis hit. I had the shares for something else they produced; didn’t know the company made fentanyl. The CEO and top managers were arrested and convicted because of some perversely unlawful activity. The stock became worthless and I was severely burnt. It felt a bit off that the millionaires at the top apparently got to keep their own money as they went to prison. They were naturally shielded from the company structure. My stock was worth zero and I recovered nothing from the bankruptcy. Lost every penny.
I thought perhaps fair enough. The risk was mine as a shareholder. Risk is what we sign up for when playing in the stock market.
Yet Facebook shareholders are suing Zuck personally on the basis of a civil offense, not criminal, for deliberately violating the privacy policy? FB is nowhere near bankrupt. Did it even take a notable long-term hit from the Cambridge Analytica scandal?
From a utilitarian standpoint, FB shareholders are scum for supporting that shitty company (neglecting holders of mutual funds and other managed funds where they lack awareness and control). OTOH, Zuck himself is the biggest piece of shit. It’s bad-on-bad, and Zuck losing his ass is justice.
But then I have to wonder, if Zuck loses the corporate shield that protects his personal money over a violating a contract, why do shareholders of a drug company not get the same privilege when it acts criminally?