You and I would find the weakened rights, hence shares, less valuable to us adn sell the shares of this company. If American peoiple are like you and I, Stanley would cease to be an American company, and we would create another.
The problem is, the American people currently want to have socialism and eat it too.
In addition, shareholders would have had to pay capital gains tax as if they had sold their shares. (Essentially the original company would have disincorporated and a new company would have been founded.)
The CEO, on the other hand, would have earned more than a hundred mllion dollars in bonuses, etc.
Stanley's move to Bermuda would have very seriously weakened and eliminated many shareholder rights.
Actually, as with comparable laws of most other Western countries, it was a trade off. The US politicos, anxious to increase their power, are quick to point out minor weakness in the laws of other countries, but are loath to even mention that those same laws also contain protections that our laws fail to address.
One of the primary reasons that so many companies choose either Bermuda or Cayman Islands, over other so-called tax havens, is that they don't present any problems that would preclude stockholder acceptance. In fact, those countries are considered to offer stockholder protection that is equal to or better than the US.
You see, there is one fact that you failed to consider:
It is the stockholders who must vote to approve such a move.
If company directors were to present an option to stockholders to move the company incorporation to a country where their rights would be reduced, the stockholders wouldn't just vote it down. They would laugh it down.
Sorry, Willie. Those darned facts just keep getting in the way, don't they? But, don't give up. We need people like you to shine a light on the inconsistencies of the left. Hang in there.