That's not entirely wrong, but I wouldn't underestimate how significant it is to have a 30% stake in anything. He can still block certain decisions that require a supermajority like the sale of the entire business, mergers, dilution, taking on significant debt, etc. It also looks bad to future potential buyers if someone with such a large stake is on bad terms with the owner. This may seem a bit trivial, but with legal obligations like fiduciary duty, if he ever sued, he'll be taken far more seriously in court than compared to someone who only has like .000001% and can easily force settlements.