THAT is the harm. That's my point. You can't sue someone for something that abstractly maybe implies something else. You sue for damages and have to show damages.
If the CEO does something that drastic, the share holders can ansolutely sue him or her because the CEO doesn't have the authority. You reckon the owner of a bus company won't fire and sue a bus driver who does something stupid that could endanger many lives?
The key point is; it's not the CEO's company. He works for a pay check, the share holders invest for long term profits. Big difference.
