If you're an existing shareholder when a company goes private, you're forced to sell at a set price. That's why it's a legal issue. That forced sale is not a free market transaction.
If you look at the history of leveraged buyouts ("private equity" is usually powered by borrowing against the company's assets, not a pure cash transaction), the existing stockholders generally lose.
I agree with the author that having a judge determine the correct price seems perverse.
I get that this isn't a democratic government where we have to guarantee full protection under the law for an individual but what I'd the 51% decides the sale price should be 1picodollar per share and then the new owner awards the 51% with shares effectively giving back their ownership? I imagine this won't happen in real life but just as a thought experiment... should it be OK?
However, according to the article the judge thought the process was fair, that there was no way to sell the company for a higher price, and shareholders voted for the deal while possessing all relevant information. I think that given those facts the deal price should be considered fair.
Boy, that's certainly a can of worms. Is someone who builds up a great company with low equity, then intentionally runs it badly to lower the share price, acquires more shares, and then runs it well again, guilty of something? Or is that just how incentives work—they felt like they needed more investment in the business before they could give their all to it?
Does the board of directors contain competent and trustworthy people? Does an activist investor wield outsize influence? Are buyout rumors circulating?
Hard to know these things, that's a big part of why index funds are so popular.
Furthermore, even a passing acquaintance with human nature should lead you to the conclusion that people will routinely claim they are being screwed even when they are not.