"Some shareholders want to sue Apple to force them to pay out more of Apple's cash to shareholders.." From my reading of the news, I think this is wrong. Einh

"Some shareholders want to sue Apple to force them to pay out more of Apple's cash to shareholders.." From my reading of the news, I think this is wrong. Einhorn (of Greenlight) is not suing to force them to pay out. He's pressuring via normal shareholder activism. "They are also sueing over a special term that allows Apple to create preference shares.." Well, this is closer, but still not quite right. Apple has a proposal forward for shareholder vote. Einhorn/Greenlight claim that this proposal is really three proposals in one, and that SEC rules require these three proposals to be unbundled, and voted on seperately. They're therefore suing to force this unbundling. Even if his suit is 100% successful, Apple shareholders will still be able to vote in favour of the modification, which would, according to the summary by Apple and that by CalPERS, 'Eliminate “blank check” preferred stock'. Einhorn's choice of language implies that he is in favour of at least one of the other aspects of Proposal 2, which is part of why he's suing to unbundle. Here are some things I read to help me understand this: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000117152013000075/eps5041.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/00011715201300... http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2013/02/07/aapl-is-fantastic-says-einhorn-its-utterly-mis-valued-but-give-us-our-preferred-shares/ http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2013/02/07/aapl-is-... and then after that, re-read TFA (the apple.com statement)