You're not thinking the Matt Levine way. None of that matters. What matters is whether said (undisclosed) event could be construed to have materially harmed the

You're not thinking the Matt Levine way. None of that matters. What matters is whether said (undisclosed) event could be construed to have materially harmed the business, and thus form grounds for a shareholder suit. The Theory is half tongue in cheek. But the other half is a serious representation of what happens in reality. Levine makes the case clearer than I do how the line of thinking can extend to catch-22s where disclosure and nondisclosure could both arguably be grounds for a suit.