An interesting delve into some of the deeper nuances of the Business Judgment Rule: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=wmbl

An interesting delve into some of the deeper nuances of the Business Judgment Rule: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=wmblr http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10... In the article, Nader is objecting to the extraction of wealth by management that doesn’t know how or want to deploy it to increase the value of the company and its stakeholders. The money flows from consumers, taxpayers (corporate welfare) and from the sacrifices of workers whose needs and increased productivity could be rewarded with better pay and pensions. So the key distinction (at least in my mind) is the inclusion of stakeholders vs. just shareholders. Any company that wants to change the world should include a pledge of duty to stakeholders (the "Corporate Social Responsibility" Model), as well as to shareholders. As an investor, I'm more apt to invest in a company that acknowledges it is a part of the society that enables it to profit. Granted, companies that do this are less likely to be able to hide behind the Business Judgment Rule; but then again if you're an investor that's probably exactly what you want.