If she owns* it, why shouldn't she able to stay? If she didn't control the company I would imagine any competent board would boot her, but she does, so she has the right to stay and bring the company down in flames if that's what she chooses to do.

* in the sense that she controls 50% + 1 of the votes

> she has the right to stay and bring the company down in flames if that's what she chooses to do

Not really. Even if she owns it she has a fiduciary responsibility to her other shareholders as an officer of the company.

Unfortunately it is quite possible that Holmes staying put IS in the best interest of all other shareholders given how little else Theranos seems to have going for it...

> in the sense that she controls 50% + 1 of the votes

Well there's the issue, a lot of these companies distort their ownership structures with multiple classes of shares in order to get around the usual 1 share, 1 vote scheme.

So does the moral principle of ownership resulting in control still apply when they may technically "own" very little?

She controls the company, but she doesn't own 50% of it. I think it's a stupid way of governing a corporation. You are asking for shit like this happen.