Theoretically if 51% of ownership of an oil company wants to seal all oil wells isn't that what the company should do?
I’m torn on that, but minority’s shareholders have a legitimate expectation their rights should be protected.
No, its not.
> not do what the majority owners of company want them to do.
Actually, the purpose laid out in most corporate charters is, within the law, to do exactly that.
> I’m torn on that, but minority’s shareholders have a legitimate expectation their rights should be protected.
They have a legitimate expectation that their rights should be protected, but the right you are basing this argument on does not exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
They can largely do whatever they want, so long as there is some rational argument that it's for the benefit of the company. If 51% of shareholders in some fossil fuel giant publicly stated that their only goals were to drive the company out of business and screw over the other 49% of shareholders, that wouldn't fly. However it's totally fine for them to push a radical new investment strategy of "buy high, sell low" and drive the business into the ground that way.