According to the verdict it wasn't a real negotiation.
Like politicians when they raise their payment.
Say you're the CEO of some corporation XYZ, and you're best buddies with a majority of the board of directors.
You then suggest that if you can hit a list of goals, you'll get the option to purchase a huge number of stocks, at a deep, deep discount.
You - the CEO - will make a ton of money, while other shareholders will lose money due to dilution.
So this begs the question, who must the board of directors look out for. The CEO, or the other shareholders? And if a majority of the board is buddies with the CEO, introducing bias to the picture, should the deal have been voided?
If you're some investor that bought XYZ stock years ago, and it 10x'ed since then - a little dilution isn't going to hurt your investment much. If you're a shareholder that bought a stock today, and tomorrow it is worth less due to dilution, and the possibility of the CEO dumping stocks, that's another thing.
Audience capture: https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture or perhaps more accurately criticism capture: https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/criticism-capture-is-more-d... is a problem for many people who become media people.