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.
What do you mean, IF ???
The company directors DID present present such a proposal.
In fact, they sent two sets of conflicting proxy instructions. One letter incorrectly indicated that taking no action on a proxy would be counted as a vote against the proposal. A later letter was sent out explaining that not returning a proxy would be counted in accordance with the plan's trust agreement, which calls for those noncast votes to be registered in the same ratio as the actual votes cast.
The proposal passed by just a narrow margin. But astute shareholders who pay attention to such details challenged the voting irregularities, initiating an SEC investigation.
Stanley has insisted that the vote was "fair and appropriate," but acknowledged that 401(k) participants might have been confused by the " unintentional mistake."
For a short period of time, Stanley management entertained the prospect of conducting a second vote. However, adverse reaction by shareholders (more in tune to the issue due to the publicity) caused them to withdraw the relocation proposal altogether. (Better for management to "save face" by withdrawing the proposal than to suffer a humiliating vote of "no-confidence" by shareholders opposed to the proposal.)
Stanley's attempt to "Enron" the 401(k) plan failed.