Handing the keys to the Magic Kingdom to a small fraction of radical Leftist activist employees cost Disney its reputation among its primary customers (parents wanting quality entertainment for their children) and shareholders $41 Billion.

Maybe some of those shareholders should be contacting lawyers who should be asking questions about why Disney thought it was a good idea to put a bunch of queer, child-grooming activists into high ranking positions, give them unchecked ability to fill children’s programing with their politics, have a Zoom meeting celebrating that, then let this group of activist employees steer the company into a head-on collision with a popular governor and parent’s rights bill.

The witness stand in a breach of fiduciary duty suit would be the perfect place to ask those questions.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

6 thoughts on “What did I just say about fiduciary duty?”
  1. Disney has a market cap of $220± billion…

    Musk was reportedly willing to spend $46± billion to takeover Twitter…

    Meaning that he could, in theory, buy 20% of Disney without breaking his “trolling the stock market” budget.

  2. None of this matters to those who wish to groom as many children as possible to be transgender or gay and make it fully legal for them to have sex with your children.

    And now they have a Supreme Court justice that that thinks this way now.

    I can’t even post what I want to post here because it is so messed up I’m certain the comment would be taken down. And this is coming from me. Almost every comment I post here is pure bat shit insanity. Or would seem like it if it was six years ago.

  3. The largest investors in Disney are likey mutual funds. So if you own shares in a mutual fund (either held directly or in an IRA, 401(k), non-retirement account, etc.) you can also contact that fund and ask them to either sell Disney, or to demand answers from the board etc.

  4. Fiduciary duty is not always about financial matters. Typically, it is, but not always.
    From the Legal Information Institute (Cornell law library)
    “When someone has a fiduciary duty to someone else, the person with the duty must act in a way that will benefit someone else, usually financially.”
    (Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty)
    Operative words: “…act in a way that will benefit someone else…”
    The wokesters absolutely believe, with 100% of their being, they are acting within the bounds of their fiduciary duty. Money is just another construct to them. Same as gender, carbon emissions, etc… They see no difference between sacrificing a company’s finances to obtain the goal of transgender equality, and a country sacrificing millions to obtain equality.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.