One of the odd things about a lot of modern companies is that the management, meaning the senior officers (CEO, CFO, CTO, etc) can pay themselves in stock.
For example, Square's Jack Dorsey pays himself 500,000 shares of stock or something like that every month and then promptly sells it. In other words, he creates 105,000 shares of stock every week and then sells it, currently for about $7 million each week. That comes to about $350 million over the course of a year. If you consider that Square has a declared earnings of around $30-40 million, the $350 million Dorsey is getting by diluting the stock is pretty significant. The whole revenue of the company is only about $2 billion annually.
To a shareholder this might seem like he is looting the company. I mean why stop at just generating 105,000 shares per week for himself? Why not just create a million shares a week and pay himself $70 million per week instead of just a measly $7 million? If you are going to pound the company into the ground, why not just go whole hog and dilute the pesky shareholders to nothing?
What stops management from doing this, essentially "paying" themselves so many shares they dilute the non-management shareholders to nothing, get a stock majority and then just delist the company and take the company private. Just take the whole pie. What stops them from doing it?
If the answer is "the shareholders could sue them", well, why aren't the shareholders suing Dorsey NOW for looting the company? Where is the dividing line between dilution being merely greedy and being malfeasance?