Given my experiences in business, even contractual obligations are often unfulfilled. Actually acting to absent from hostile action Stinc's stake is the only viable option available to Stinc.

US law requires corporations to maximize the returns of investors. A CEO that did not undertake obvious and available means of protecting the assets of the corporation from being seized or diminished would be subject to criminal prosecution if such an event occurred.

I don't think @ned has a choice of whether or not to powerdown, legally, since the threat to seize the stake in a hostile takeover was made. Retractions, assertions of fidelity, even written contracts to indemnify Stinc, are insufficient to assure that such threats aren't carried out.

Edit: there's also another matter. If I told you that I would punch you in the dick if you didn't give me your money, would you say that the only way to guarantee I punched you in the dick was to not pay me?

Assholes can just punch you anyway. Extortion isn't polite, and savvy business routes around it.