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 ...
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.
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...
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.
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.”
Do you think an unbiased study would show that pushing Dylan Mulvaney's face on the can would actually increase total Bud Light sales?
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).
I think they could have a study that shows that marketing to LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ people using partnerships with YouTube influencers could result in increased sales.
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.
Other way around - the Target case is actually stronger than the Bud Light case.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
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.