A market-driven system should work like this: founders and executives earn what shareholders decide they're worth. When millions of retail investors cast their votes in favor of executive compensation packages, that democratic choice carries weight. The market rewards performance, penalizes failure—that's how it's supposed to function. But what happens when judicial intervention overrides this collective investor decision? When one individual's personal interpretation supersedes the will of the market and the shareholders who fund these companies? That's not how capitalism is meant to operate. The integrity of the system depends on respecting market consensus and shareholder democracy, not having single decision-makers override transparent voting outcomes based on subjective judgment.