> Boards are elected by shareholders to act on behalf of their fiduciary interests, the actions the board took were in that interest, and matt replaced the board, because he placed personal power above financial upside

Contrary to popular opinion, Delaware courts have given great leeway to majority shareholders in deciding a company's strategy, and placing certain things above short-term "financial upside" is among those.

> I'm excited for this proposition because it would mean discovery of matt's terrible management decisions

It's funny you don't see the contradiction between considering the board as the paladins of small shareholders, just while the board was allowing the new interim CEO to leech company money by giving himself (and the chief legal counsel) a golden parachute.