Doesn't look too happy----maybe it's his receding hairline?
There is a long history of media firms, sports franchises, and other businesses (e.g., Ford Motor) having dual class stock, which enable a family to have a lock on control, even without a majority of shareholders. Work by Demsetz and Lehn back in the mid-1980s is fascinating on this point -- control of even the largest corporations in the US is far more concentrated than you would think, in no small part b/c of arrangements such as this.
On the one hand, Morgan Stanley and others knew what they were getting into when they bought the stock, and there is a long history of this sort of thing happening. One of the most famous court cases in all of corporate law, Shlensky v Wrigley (1968), is about disgruntled shareholders suing the owners of the Chicago Cubs. The court made a wonderfully conservative rule that has come to be known as the "business judgment rule," which basically says that judges won't second- and third-guess decisions made by corporate CEOs and boards of directors.
On the other hand, Morgan Stanley has votes and can do with them as they please. If they wish to express their extreme satisfaction and wield whatever modest influence they can to embarrass Pinch, that is certainly their prerogative.
I follow the NYTimes very closely. A long, secular decline has accelerated into a complete free fall. The last 12 months have been utterly gruesome, and the stock price still does not reflect the horror that awaits this company. Indeed, the only thing that can explain why the stock has not fallen much more than it has is that the smart money figures that Pinch can not hold out indefinitely, and that after he is deposed someone will come in and begin setting things right.
Of course, I could be wrong, which would suggest that y'all could make a lot of money (and take great satisfaction in) shorting this dog of a stock.