Listen Get

The Press Release and Journalist List

Author
Affiliation

Mike P. Sinn

International Campaign to End War and Disease

Abstract

The shareholder demand letter is filed with the defendant board. The press release is distributed simultaneously, so the story breaks publicly the same day the board receives the math. This page provides the press release template, a journalist target list by beat, the sequencing instructions, and the follow-up cadence. Specific reporter names require verification before each filing because beats and personnel shift.

Keywords

press release, journalist outreach, shareholder lawsuit, media strategy, defense industry, 1% treaty

STATUS: DRAFT. Specific reporter names require verification at the time of filing. The press release template is structurally complete; placeholders marked [BRACKETS] must be filled with current data.

Sequencing

The press release is timed to the demand letter filing:

T Action
T-72h Counsel reviews final draft of press release; verifies no privileged content.
T-48h Journalist list refreshed; embargo offered to 5-10 priority reporters for advance copy.
T-24h Embargoed copies sent to priority reporters with explicit lift time.
T=0 Demand letter delivered to defendant board by certified mail and email; press release distributed simultaneously to full journalist list; warondisease.org/lawsuit page goes live with the public filing.
T+1h Plaintiff and counsel available for interviews.
T+24h Follow-up emails to journalists who did not respond; offer additional context, named sources, supplementary data.
T+7d Op-ed pitch to the strongest interested outlet, drafted by the plaintiff with counsel’s review.
T+60d Board response received or not; second press release covering the outcome.

The Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[DATE]

Contact: [PLAINTIFF NAME] | [EMAIL] | [PHONE] Counsel: [LAW FIRM] | [PARTNER NAME] | [FIRM PHONE]

Shareholder Sues [COMPANY] Board Alleging $[X] Million Annual Lobbying Budget Destroys Long-Term Shareholder Value

A first-of-its-kind Caremark derivative theory argues that defense industry lobbying is mathematically negative-ROI for the shareholders it claims to represent. The plaintiff says it may be the first lawsuit in history where the defendants are radically better off losing than winning.

[CITY, DATE]: [PLAINTIFF NAME], a shareholder of [COMPANY] ([TICKER]), today filed a shareholder demand letter with the company’s Board of Directors alleging that the company’s annual lobbying expenditure of approximately $[X] million produces negative return on investment for its own shareholders, and is making the Board members, the shareholders, and their families more likely to die of pancreatic cancer, Alzheimer’s, ALS, cardiovascular disease, and other conditions that would otherwise have had treatments. [PLAINTIFF NAME] [TODO: optionally add one sentence on the personal stake, e.g., “filed after losing [their mother] to [pancreatic cancer] in [2024], a disease whose candidate treatments are sitting in the untested-compound queue today”].

The legal theory, based on Delaware’s Caremark duty of oversight doctrine as expanded in Marchand v. Barnhill (2019) and Garfield v. Allen (2024), argues that [COMPANY]’s lobbying to maintain current US military appropriations suppresses the GDP growth that funds the company’s long-term addressable market. Specifically, the lobbying targets maintaining the current 604 (95% CI: 453-894)-to-1 ratio of military spending to government clinical-trial spending, which the demand letter argues delays disease eradication by approximately 204 years and reduces global GDP at year 15 by a factor of approximately 4.1x (95% CI: 2.02x-8.62x).

“This is not adversarial,” said [PLAINTIFF NAME]. “I love the board members of [COMPANY]. I do not want them to suffer and die of horrible diseases, and I do not want their spouses, children, parents, or shareholders to either. I also do not want the judge, the jury, the defense counsel, or any of their families to die of horrible diseases. The current lobbying is increasing that probability for every one of us. We are asking the Board, and any court that hears this case, to redirect the same lobbying budget so that none of us, on either side of the caption, and none of the people we love, has to die of a disease the math says we could have cured. As far as we can tell this is the first lawsuit in history where the defendants are radically better off losing than winning, and where a legal victory for the defendants is, in actuarial terms, a death sentence for the defendants, the plaintiff, the judge, the jury, the defense counsel, and the entire families of every one of them. Settle and the Board members and their families are roughly $3.48 million (95% CI: $1.05 million-$9.82 million) richer over a lifetime and roughly 12 years (95% CI: 8 years-18 years) longer-lived. Fight and win and everyone in the courtroom and everyone they love stays on the trajectory that kills them earlier than the math says they could have lived. We are asking everyone in the case to please let us help them.”

The proposed resolution is non-monetary: [COMPANY] would redirect its annual lobbying objective from maintaining current military spending levels to supporting a global agreement to redirect 1% of military spending to pragmatic clinical trials. Per the demand letter, this resolution costs [COMPANY] $0 in additional expenditure, expands its long-term addressable market by a factor of approximately 4.1x (95% CI: 2.02x-8.62x), and increases shareholder lifetime wealth by approximately $3.48 million (95% CI: $1.05 million-$9.82 million) per shareholder.

“This is a frontier Caremark theory,” said [COUNSEL NAME], partner at [LAW FIRM] and counsel for [PLAINTIFF NAME]. “The duty of oversight has historically focused on backward-looking harm: failed acquisitions, accounting fraud, product safety. We are arguing it extends to forward-looking value destruction through recurring expenditures that the board has never scrutinized. The pleading is sourced entirely from public data.”

The Board has 60 days to respond. If the response is inadequate, [PLAINTIFF NAME] intends to file a shareholder proposal under SEC Rule 14a-8 requiring an independent ROI analysis of [COMPANY]’s lobbying expenditure, and a derivative action in [Delaware Chancery / Maryland] alleging breach of the duty of care.

The full demand letter, supporting calculations, and underlying treaty proposal are available at warondisease.org/lawsuit. The campaign’s broader analysis of why the 1% redirection benefits every party, including [COMPANY]’s own executives and board members, is at warondisease.org/where-am-i-wrong.

Key facts

  • Cost to file: $200 for one share. The cheapest derivative action ever brought against a Fortune 500 defendant.
  • What the plaintiff loses: roughly $3.48 million (95% CI: $1.05 million-$9.82 million) in lifetime income and approximately 10-20 healthy life-years, each, if the lawsuit fails. Same numbers for the directors. Same numbers for the judge.
  • What the defendant loses by settling: nothing. Settlement is non-monetary, $0 incremental cost. Same lobbyists. Different ask on Capitol Hill.
  • What the defendant gains by settling: a Company operating in an economy roughly 4.1x (95% CI: 2.02x-8.62x) larger at year 15 of the treaty, and directors who are alive to see it.
  • Legal basis: Caremark, Marchand v. Barnhill, Garfield v. Allen, Stone v. Ritter. The demand letter creates the documented red flag that triggers oversight obligations.

About the 1% Treaty Campaign

Every nation redirects 1% of its military spending to pragmatic clinical trials. The disease eradication timeline compresses from 443 years to 36 years. Approximately 565 billion DALYs (95% CI: 361 billion DALYs-877 billion DALYs) of healthy life-years are recovered across humanity. Specifically: fewer humans die of pancreatic cancer, Alzheimer’s, ALS, and cardiovascular disease. The treatments that would have cured them currently sit in the untested-compound queue, including metformin, rapamycin, and low-dose naltrexone. The 1% redirection funds the trials. The current defense lobby blocks them. The International Campaign to End War and Disease coordinates the campaign at warondisease.org.

Spokespeople available for interview

  • [PLAINTIFF NAME], named plaintiff. Available for written, phone, and on-camera interviews. Contact: [EMAIL] | [PHONE].
  • [COUNSEL NAME], partner at [LAW FIRM]. Available for legal-theory questions. Contact: [FIRM EMAIL] | [FIRM PHONE].
  • Mike P. Sinn, founder, International Campaign to End War and Disease. Available for the broader treaty context. Contact: [email protected].

Journalist Target List

Reporters and outlets are organized by beat. Each row needs a verified current reporter name before sending. Beats shift; reporters move. Refresh the list at T-48h, not at T-30d.

Beat Priority outlets
Defense Defense News, Breaking Defense, Politico Defense, Roll Call, The Hill
Business / finance Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, Financial Times, CNBC
Legal trade Reuters Legal, Bloomberg Law, Law360
Healthcare / science STAT News, Vox Future Perfect, MIT Technology Review
Opinion (politically diverse) NYT Opinion, WSJ Opinion, The Atlantic, Reason

20 outlets is enough for a first wave. Expand from there if interest is high.

Follow-Up Cadence

Most reporters do not respond to first contact. The follow-up cadence:

Day Action
T=0 Send press release with personalized opening line referencing the reporter’s prior beat.
T+24h Brief follow-up email offering specific elements (interview, custom data slice, source). Do not resend the full release.
T+72h Final follow-up; one paragraph; offer to introduce a different angle. Acknowledge they may be on a different story.
T+7d If interested but no story yet, offer an exclusive angle (a different defendant; an institutional-investor reaction; an op-ed).
T+14d If silent, archive and move on. They may revisit when the 60-day board response is due.
T+60d Re-engage at the board-response milestone with a new release.

Tracker

Maintain a journalist tracker parallel to the counsel tracker:

Outlet Reporter Date sent Embargo offered? Acknowledged? Story published? Tone Follow-up
[outlet] [name] [date] yes/no yes/no/silent yes/no/scheduled favorable/neutral/critical [next step]

The tracker informs the second wave (the next defendant) by showing which beats responded, which framings landed, and which reporters declined and why.