It’s not about stripping shareholder rights—it’s about understanding what you’re buying. In the Moelis case, it was clear from the start that the company was fo

It’s not about stripping shareholder rights—it’s about understanding what you’re buying. In the Moelis case, it was clear from the start that the company was founder-controlled. No one was misled. Investors had full transparency and chose to buy in with that structure in place. Shareholders absolutely have rights, but those rights depend on the governance structure they agreed to when they invested. If you buy non-voting shares or shares in a dual-class structure, you don’t get to retroactively demand different terms. The market offers plenty of companies with traditional governance—if that’s a priority, investors are free to choose them. The real question is: should courts be rewriting corporate structures after the fact, overriding agreements that were clear from day one?