Sufficient injury for standing where an investor has progressively accumulated a position in a fund, and the administrators pass a measure limiting the voting rights by default above a certain imminent threshold; this is not a "someday intention," and the possibility that the terms could be renegotiated after a proffer would merely constitute another injury from the costs.
Diminishment of the value of the shares is an injury in law, as it violates the statute; as the loss in value is analogous to conversion or other tort claim, there is a sufficient historical analogue to establish the concrete nature of the harm.
Default restriction on the voting rights of the shares of some purchasers inherently violates the statutory requirement of present, equal voting rights in shares. The share-shareholder distinction has only been recognized in limited terms, such as compliance with incorporation requirements, and other shareholder-based restrictions on voting are less fundamental than blocking the voting rights entirely.
Plain meaning of the statute controls, rather than interpretations of its stated purposes.
Saba Cap. CEF Opportunities 1, Ltd., Saba Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Nuveen