Own a Share of any company advertising during "The Reagans"? YOU can stop them! CLICK HERE!

[jmstein7]

A fellow FReeper posed an interesting legal question:

"I'm not a lawyer, but it occurs to me that there may be another avenue for legal recourse and I'd like your opinion. Suppose the CEO of one of the sponsors of this slime attack learns that the program is controversial and could lead to a boycott of his product or service. Doesn't he have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to assure that advertising expenditures support his business goals and not detract from them ? Could a shareholder's suit be brought ? If the company proceeds, could the FEC rule that the sponsorship cost was a disguised political contribution since it had no business purpose?" -- fractal38

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007987/posts?page=32#32

Such a cause of action does indeed exist: a shareholder derivative suit.

A corporation is itself a legal person distinct from those who own it, entitled, for example, to its own profits, and in a derivative action it is the rights of the corporation that are sought to be vindicated. A stockholder may maintain a derivative action or sue in behalf of the corporation if he shows that he will ultimately sustain some loss or injury if the wrongs to the corporation are not redressed, and if he shows that he will, to that extent at least, be benefited by the relief requested.

An action brought by a stockholder is derivative if the crux of the complaint is injury to the corporation or to the whole body of its stockholders, not just injury to the plaintiff's own individual interest as a stockholder.

Here is some helpful caselaw to review if you would like to seek to enjoin a company you own stock in from advertising during "The Reagans":

Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (1991): Derivative form of action permits individual shareholder to bring suit to enforce corporate cause of action against officers, directors, and third parties.

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,337 U.S. 541 (1949): A stockholder who brings a derivative action assumes a position of a fiduciary character since he sues not for himself alone, but as a representative of a class comprising all who are similarly situated.

That's what I have to start with (top-down). I don't know much about this cause of action, but if there are any FReeper lawyers (admited to the bar) who know how to take action to prevent the company from taking certain action (here, buying advertising time during "The Reagans"), please post your comments.

[jmstein7]

The title should read "SHARE" not "HARE"; is there a way to correct it?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Will shares multiply like rabbits?

[dinok]

"Will shares multiply like rabbits?"

if only that was true...I would be a billionaire.

[jmstein7]

Thanks!

[jmstein7]

PING!

[jmstein7]

PING!

[jmstein7]

PING!

[TexasTransplant]

This is soooo much better than freeping a web survey. I do love it. Freep ON.

[jmstein7]

PING!

[jmstein7]

PING!

[paul in cape]

A list of sponsors for the show is HERE

[Montfort]

I think you will find that the vast majority of shareholder derivative suits are brought by liberal Democrat lawyers.

[FloridaBoy]

Yea, but when are your thoughts heard? At the next board meeting after this is all over. Better boycotte the sponsers.

[jmstein7]

Not quite -- because in this action you are SUING the board; that's kind of the point.

[jmstein7]

BTTT!

[IncPen]

I have been wondering if this 'movie' constitutes a 'paid political announcement'... considering it's running in November and has distinctly anti-Republican sentiments.

I've posited on other threads that the way to shut this thing down is to contact the SALES departments of the local CBS Owned and operated stations.

Then contact the sponsors and tell them that their sponsorship of this movie constitutes a political statement by them.

Note: there's a difference among CBS stations that's worth noting. CBS owns stations in a few markets. In MOST markets, there are stations that have affiliated themselves with CBS to carry 'network programs' but are independently owned.

These stations would be MOST open to hearing from protestors like us, because they can opt out of programming (it's painful for them to do so, but if they can jusitfy it, they'll skip the broadcast)