at 1051-52. The City was the original source of Health Benefits’ corporate revenue, but there is no evidence that Health Benefits used anything other than its own corporate account to pay for the printing and mailing of the postcard. Conclusion In ruling in Health Benefits’ favor, the trial court noted its agreement with Zam-pogna’s position “from a moral standpoint” and cautioned that the Board of Directors “may wish to consider the propriety” of endorsing a particular candidate in a Union election. Trial Court Opinion at 3. It recognized, however, that courts are constrained to make legal, not moral, judg- ments. It declined Zampogna’s invitation to substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Directors. See Anderson v. Colonial Country Club, 739 A.2d 1118, 1123 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (<HOLDING>). I would affirm the holding of the Court of
recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation holding that when the language of a statute is clear courts should not substitute their judgment for that of congress and should enforce the statute according to its terms holding that independent directors can be entrusted with the decision to sue other directors on behalf of the corporation holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation  holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency