Send
Print
JiahuiH
A shareholder's lawsuit claims that Intel's agreement with the US government, finalized in August 2025, is an illegal contract that gives the government $11 billion worth of company stock without significant value in return, as a result of threats of extortion from the state.
In August 2025, Intel disclosed that the U.S. government had bought 433.3 million of its shares at a price of $20.47 each, resulting in the government holding a 10% stake in the company. The investment was intended to be covered by funds designated for Intel under the Chips Act, which have not yet been received, along with resources from other government initiatives.
According to the Financial Times, Richard Paisner, a minority private shareholder of Intel, has filed a lawsuit seeking to have the court reverse the company's agreement with the government.
Paisner asserts that Intel's CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, and the company's board of directors gave in to pressure caused by threats from Trump. The lawsuit claims that they did not act in the best interests of the shareholders, but were more focused on "protecting their personal reputations and preventing criticism from Trump and his supporters on social media and other public platforms."
source: ft.com
In August 2025, Intel disclosed that the U.S. government had bought 433.3 million of its shares at a price of $20.47 each, resulting in the government holding a 10% stake in the company. The investment was intended to be covered by funds designated for Intel under the Chips Act, which have not yet been received, along with resources from other government initiatives.
According to the Financial Times, Richard Paisner, a minority private shareholder of Intel, has filed a lawsuit seeking to have the court reverse the company's agreement with the government.
Paisner asserts that Intel's CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, and the company's board of directors gave in to pressure caused by threats from Trump. The lawsuit claims that they did not act in the best interests of the shareholders, but were more focused on "protecting their personal reputations and preventing criticism from Trump and his supporters on social media and other public platforms."
source: ft.com
