Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

After losing $12 billion, Target faces demands for documents in a possible prelude to a shareholder lawsuit
American Thinker ^ | 06/07/2023 | Monica Showalter

Posted on 06/07/2023 7:12:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Could Target's woke executives finally be made to pay attention?

They might, given that they've been issued legal demands from a shareholder to produce all documents related to its woke transgender agenda.

According to America First Legal, a group that is led by Stephen Miller, a former member of the Trump White House:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, America First Legal (AFL), on behalf of its client, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), served the Target Corporation with a formal demand for the production of corporate books and records, seeking transparency regarding its management’s radical LGBT political agenda that has apparently cost the corporation over $12 billion in market valuation since mid-May 2023. NCPPR is a Target shareholder.

Target’s 2022 annual report acknowledges that the corporation’s core customer base is made up of “families.” It further recognizes the serious risk to Target’s company’s financial prospects if that core customer base sours on the corporation: “Our continued success is dependent on positive perceptions of Target which, if eroded, could adversely affect our business and our relationships with our guests and team members.” 

Nevertheless, the evidence is that Target’s management has recklessly bent the knee to the radical left. Serving “stakeholders,” not shareholders,


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: budlighted; budlighttreatment; groomers; grooming; lawsuit; retail; stockprice; stocks; target; woke
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: RoosterRedux

Making a stupid but legal decision is not valid grounds for a lawsuit of that nature, though. All the board has to do is demonstrate that their actions were taken in the good faith belief that it was in the corporation’s best interest and that no deliberately false statements or fraud was committed and the lawsuit goes away.


41 posted on 06/08/2023 6:12:33 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
Fiduciary responsibility is about more than mere legality...though a violation of it might certainly be illegal.

This Bud Light matter might be a viable case if it could be established that AB-InBev's actions were a violation of fiduciary responsibility by putting management's political agenda ahead of the interests of the shareholders and in doing so created a significant loss in share value...particularly if it can be established that the board was being pressured by certain institutional investors (like BlackRock) to do so.

Of course, from a practical POV, the judge hearing his matter would be a problem if he were politically biased toward the Left...

42 posted on 06/08/2023 8:08:13 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (See my FR homepage for a link to the entire Bible narrated by David Suchet on youtube. FREE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
FYI:

Elon Musk predicts class-action lawsuits against Target after company loses $15 billion

43 posted on 06/08/2023 8:42:09 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (See my FR homepage for a link to the entire Bible narrated by David Suchet on youtube. FREE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

A counter from the defense would be to present studies showing that they believed that such a course of behavior would increase sales and had some research to indicate that. If so, such a move could be justified as being in the best interest of the shareholders/corporation. Additionally, that’s the thing about ESG loans - they could say that this was being required to keep the free money they were being given, which would also have been in the corporation’s best interests.


44 posted on 06/08/2023 8:49:47 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

The Target debacle is different, though. “We carry a product designed by someone who is anathema to our customer base and publicly espouses illegal conduct” isn’t quite the same as “We thought we could market to the LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ segment.”


45 posted on 06/08/2023 8:52:02 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
A counter from the defense would be to present studies showing that they believed that such a course of behavior would increase sales and had some research to indicate that.

Do you think an unbiased study would show that pushing Dylan Mulvaney's face on the can would actually increase total Bud Light sales?

46 posted on 06/08/2023 8:53:01 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (See my FR homepage for a link to the entire Bible narrated by David Suchet on youtube. FREE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
Yes. Very true (if I understand your point correctly).

The Target case would be weaker than a Bud Light case. Target is already known as a gay-friendly retailer (and has been for many years).

47 posted on 06/08/2023 8:57:14 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (See my FR homepage for a link to the entire Bible narrated by David Suchet on youtube. FREE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

I think they could have a study that shows that marketing to LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ people using partnerships with YouTube influencers could result in increased sales.


48 posted on 06/08/2023 9:02:13 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
I would think that might be true for some products. But not if your existing customer base is the typical Bud Light drinker.

Such action by Bud Light and AB-InBev looks like a case of corporate/marketing insanity.

The action of Alissa Heinerscheid is inexplicable at best.

In a sane world, this case would be taught in future marketing courses as something NOT TO DO.

49 posted on 06/08/2023 9:17:17 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (See my FR homepage for a link to the entire Bible narrated by David Suchet on youtube. FREE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Other way around - the Target case is actually stronger than the Bud Light case.


50 posted on 06/08/2023 9:31:30 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

We’ll have to agree to disagree.


51 posted on 06/08/2023 9:35:42 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (See my FR homepage for a link to the entire Bible narrated by David Suchet on youtube. FREE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson