Smith & Wesson Slaps Down Shareholders

[Ben]

In a good way. Apparently some anti-gun activists bought a whole 200 shares of American Outdoor Brands in order to "topple them from within". I thought this was a pretty good response for a megacorp:

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/02/12/smith-wesson-we-support-2nd-amendment-not-mandatory-smart-guns

[T.O.M.]

Stating up front that I know nothing about corporate law, I don't understand how these activists types are able to buy a relatively small number of shares in a corporation and force the corporation to do anything.  From what I've read, this group of nuns forces S&W to conduct a study on their own efforts on gun safety, smart gun technology, etc.  How does that work?

That said, some attorneys I know say that this appears to be a new tactic among activist groups trying to take on big business.  If they can get enough shares to force a study like this, their intention is to make the study public, either for bad PR or as evidence in lawsuits against the company.

[brimic]

LOL, they bought $2500 worth of stock in a company with $673 million+ market cap and think they have a seat at the board table? 

[Ben]

LOL, they bought $2500 worth of stock in a company with $673 million+ market cap and think they have a seat at the board table? 

Which makes Chris' post interesting. While owning a few hundred shares here and there of something makes me a shareholder, I would never consider myself a SHAREHOLDER. I've always thought that to have real shareholder power for big changes (like pretty much ruining the business by not selling their main product) you need the 51%.

But as Chris questioned, perhaps some publicly traded companies have some weird "woke" rules about needing to respond to shareholder inquiries/demands if they are say, put forth in a specific documented way.

[MechAg94]

I thought all they did was show up at a stockholder's meeting and submit questions in a way that S&W had to respond.  I think they did the same to Ruger.  And didn't this happen a year ago?  Maybe I am misremembering.

[AZRedhawk44]

Big change for the wind-up toy company.  They bent over and took it when Saf-T-Hammer mandated putting their mechanism inside the frame.

[Ben]

Big change for the wind-up toy company.  They bent over and took it when Saf-T-Hammer mandated putting their mechanism inside the frame.

One reason I thought it was notable. Quite a difference from a few years back.

One of the comments at the link alluded to Colt saying/doing something dumb recently. I couldn't find anything with a cursory googles though.

[K Frame]

Well, this response from the company certainly makes me a lot more confident in them.

I may even remove the brand from my DIE AND GO TO HELL! list, which they joined in 2001 and hadn't really done much engender their removal.

[K Frame]

"One of the comments at the link alluded to Colt saying/doing something dumb recently."

SNORT!

When HASN'T Colt been doing/saying something dumb for the last couple of decades?