Can a company block a specific person from buying its stock?
I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances. "A more serious problem: how do you know who's really buying your stock? ""Shell companies"" are an increasingly obvious problem in corporate and tax accountability. There are jurisdictions where companies can be created with secret lists of directors and shareholders. If stock is bought by one of these companies, it is very hard to trace it to a particular individual." In the UK, this is the very definition of a Public Limited Company.    A Limited Company can restrict how its stock is trades and who can buy and sell and when, a Public Limited Company cannot. Most stock exchanges will only allow Public Limited Company stock to be traded. Therefore a company can control who its stock holders are or be traded on a Stock Exchange. The company could use registered shares with restricted transferability, i.e. shares that require the consent of the issuing company for a change of ownership. The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would.
"With the second example, if you continue to read on you will see that although directors must try and maximise shareholders wealth. That precedence doesn't change however the interpretation of the actions and whether they maximise shareholders wealth does. For example giving money to charity with regards to the Doge v. Ford case would probably have been blocked on the grounds that it decreases shareholder wealth, but later cases such as A. P. Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow say that donations can increase shareholders wealth in the long run. So it gives a broader coverage of the actions deemed to increase shareholder wealth.  The second is related to short term vs long term wealth but part of the reason for it was due to the inability of Paramount to prove that the value increase for shareholders in the long run from selling to Viacom rather than QVC would be larger than the difference between the two offers, which was 1.3 billion. Then there is also the issue of shareholders rights and the companys ability to block shareholders from selling to whomever they want. So as I said it's related, but the issue isn't solely and simply about short term vs long term wealth.  Both examples are kind of weak as in the first, well the issue doesn't really exist in the present day as previous case law has broadened the definition of actions which increase shareholder wealth, and in the second, short term vs long term value is related, but mostly tagging along with a larger issue. Your original statement was ""in matters of cost vs. quality I'd expect publicly traded companies to prioritize short-term shareholder profit (or be sued by said shareholders.)""  Are there any examples where shareholders have sued simply because they wanted better short term performance over long term performance?" (yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading.  I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol).  I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that).  I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own. You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job.  The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it.  They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors.  With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way. Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? Yes, that is entirely possible. My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia. They put their stock on the market that people then purchased, if they don't put that stock out there then I suspect those people will just buy the stock from somewhere, so really no harm was caused to any individual that would have been prevented otherwise.   It's not great, and shouldn't be done as market asssumtry isn't good. I think the punishments for if aren't to right any sort of wrongdoing, it's to act as a deterrent. This all happens at once and quickly. Not in order.  So the HFT floods the exchange with orders. This is independent of anything. They would be doing this no matter what. Simply in anticipation of finding someone who will want what they're trying to buy.   They then notice someone wants what they have a buy order for. They, at the same time, cancel all orders that don't fit this criteria. At the same time, they're testing this guy to see what his price is. So while they're testing this guy they're cancelling all orders that are above his strike price for that stock. They let the right order go through, for a lower price. If they can't get a lower price, they just forget it. However, they probably can because they were in line first. They're buying before this guy and AFTER they know what he wants to pay.    Then, they sell it to him. "So item 1  The two investors leading the suit say ""it's because we want lots of control"" and sue founder.  The standard share holders want equal voting - as would I.  Founder appoints two new board members to ensure this happens.  Item 2 the suit:  The suit is to remove the ability to appoint new board members from the founder correct?  After he has appointed two new ones to implement the changes the other shareholders want correct?  But somehow the suit is ""on behalf"" of the other share holders?  Do I have you explanation right?" That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares.  An IPO in explain like I'm five:  A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for ***at least***  30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back.   ***  So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it.   Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't. You can obtain a stocklist if you file a lawsuit as a shareholder against the company demanding that you receive the list. It's called an inspection case. The company then has to go to Cede and/or the Depository Trust Company who then compiles the NOBO COBO list of beneficiary stockholders. SEC.gov gives you a very limited list of people who have had to file 13g or 13d or similar filings. These are large holders. To get the list of ALL stockholders you have to go through Cede. "As far as I know, the answer to this is generally ""no.""  The closest thing would be to identify the stock transfer company representing the company that you want to hold and buy through them. (I have held this way, but I don't know if it's available on all stocks.)  This eliminates the broker, but there's still a ""middle man"" in the transfer company. Note this section from the Stock transfer agent Wikipedia article: A public company usually only designates one company to transfer its stock. Stock transfer agents also run annual meetings as inspector of elections, proxy voting, and special meetings of shareholders. They are considered the official keeper of the corporate shareholder records. The decision to have a single transfer company is a practical one, ensuring that there is one entity responsible for recording this data - Hence even if you could buy stock ""directly"" from the company that you want to own, it would likely still get routed through the transfer company for recording." It depends completely on the current order book for that security.  There is literally no telling how that buy order would move the price of a stock in general. If they own enough shares to vote to sell, you will be paid the offer price quoted to you. At that point if you do not wish to sell your only recourse will be to file a lawsuit. This is a common tactic for significant shareholders who have a minority stake and cannot block the sale because they have insufficient voting rights. What usually happens then is that they either settle the lawsuit out of court by paying a little more to the holdouts or the lawsuit is thrown out and they take the original offer from the buyer. Rarely does a lawsuit from a buyout go to trial. Your first scenario, involving shareholders in a private corp being limited by a contractual agreement, is common in practice. Frequent clauses include methods of valuing the shares if someone wants to sell, first right of refusal [you have to attempt to sell to the other shareholders, before you can sell to a 3rd party], and many others. These clauses are governed by contract law [ie: some clauses may be illegal in contract law, and therefore couldn't be applied here]. A Universal Shareholders' Agreement is just the same as the above, but applied to more people. You would never get an already public company to convert to a universal shareholders' agreement - because even 1 share voting 'no' would block it [due to corporate law limiting the power of a corporation from abusing minority shareholder value]. In practice, these agreements universally exist at the start of incorporation, or at least at the first moment shares become available. An example is the Canadian mega-construction company PCL*, which is employee-owned. When the original owner transferred the corporation to his employees, there was a USA in place which still today governs how the corporation operates.  In theory you could have a 'public company' where most shares are already owned by the founders, and 100% of remaining shares are owned by a specific group of individuals, in which case you may be able to get a USA signed. But it wouldn't really happen in practice.  *[Note that while PCL is broadly owned by a large group of employees, it is not a 'public company' because any random schmuck can't simply buy a share on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I assume most exchanges would prevent corporations from being listed if they had ownership restrictions like this]. No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it)