chapotraphouse

Since it's worded a little weirdly in tbe title, and equally-weirdly in the article, I believe what they're saying is....

"UHC didn't lower their profit goals after Thompson's murder, even though achieving those goals requires aggressive anti-consumer tactics, and they should have known that they wouldn't be able to implement those, after the murder highlighted how anti-consumer the company is."

So, in case it wasn't clear, no, the plaintiff position doesn't really give a shit about the anti-consumerism itself.

These jokers love to pat themselves on the back saying they're so brave and take risk with stocks, but then they throw temper tantrums like when they don't get their "guaranteed returns"

Damn who are these shareholders? Is there a list?

Orphan crushing machine sued by orphan crushing machine shareholders for not crushing enough orphans

1000 more 's wouldn't be enough to cleanse this land

My brother in Christ the aggressive anti-consumer tactics is why there is backlash.

Also holy shit can we just stop and think about how fucked up you'd have to be to be one of these shareholders?

What else can you say except death to amerikkka, death to capitalism, and death to the shareholders?

They are suing because UHC didn't tell them they weren't going to make as much money. Seems the bean counters doubted the power of

Hilarious to even try this. Fiduciary responsibility demands extracting every single cent from every drop of blood or you lose your job as CEO, but we get to sue now if they do it in a way that's too icky- buddy wait'll you hear about how all labour is exploitation