Nestlé is facing mounting pressure from its shareholders after the abrupt departure of a second chief executive in just over a year, with investors calling for Chairman Paul Bulcke to step aside.

The Financial Times reported Saturday that several shareholders expressed frustration over the dismissal of Laurent Freixe, Nestlé’s former chief executive, and the handling of investigations into his conduct. They argue the episode has amplified concerns over corporate governance at the world’s largest packaged food maker and cast doubt on Bulcke’s judgment.

“I don’t think Bulcke will move on before April but he should have left when Mark Schneider was forced out,” Alexandre Stucki, founder of AS Investment Management, which represents Nestlé’s founding family investors, told the newspaper.

The Swiss food giant abruptly dismissed Freixe in early September for failing to disclose a romantic relationship with a subordinate — a violation the company said was a “clear breach” of its code of conduct.

Freixe’s removal followed the sudden departure of his predecessor, Mark Schneider, a year earlier, and came just 2½ months after Bulcke announced plans to step down in 2026. Nestlé stressed to the Financial Times that the two CEO departures were unrelated.

Bulcke, a 70-year-old Belgian and Swiss national, has been with the company since 1979. He led Nestlé as CEO between 2008 and 2016 before becoming chairman in April 2017.

For many investors, patience with Bulcke has worn thin. Shareholders argue that repeated leadership upheaval points to deeper structural governance problems that go beyond individual cases of misconduct.

Support for Bulcke had already been slipping. In April, he was re-elected with 84.8% of shareholder votes, a sharp drop from the nearly 96% approval he received when he first took the chairmanship in 2017.

Doubts have also lingered over Nestlé’s ability to recover post-pandemic. In 2023, sales volumes flagged even as the company hiked prices to offset rising raw material costs, raising questions about consumer demand resilience in its core markets.

The unrest at Nestlé mirrors challenges faced by other consumer goods giants, where governance lapses and abrupt executive exits rattled investor confidence. Unilever, for instance, faced shareholder discontent in 2022 over strategy missteps tied to its failed bid for GSK’s consumer health unit. Danone also saw its CEO ousted in 2021 under pressure from investors frustrated with weak returns.

In Nestlé’s case, two successive CEO exits in such quick succession, compounded by governance questions around oversight and accountability, risk undermining long-term strategic clarity. For a company managing a global footprint of brands spanning Nescafé to KitKat, consistency in leadership is often viewed as critical for navigating inflationary pressures, shifting consumer demand, and competition from agile newcomers in health-focused food sectors.

Nestlé’s boardroom challenges place Bulcke under growing scrutiny ahead of his planned departure. If investor agitation intensifies, pressure could build for an earlier leadership transition to restore stability.

At stake is not only governance credibility but also Nestlé’s ability to reorient itself after a turbulent two years of rising costs, weaker sales, and questions about whether the group can reinvent its growth model in the face of changing consumer habits.

Two abrupt CEO exits in a short span have elevated governance from a boardroom risk to a near-term strategic one. Nestlé’s global scale and portfolio give it resilience, but analysts believe restoring investor confidence will require visible changes: tighter ethics enforcement, a clear succession plan, and a persuasive path back to volume growth. Without those moves, the company risks a drawn-out period of shareholder activism and operational distraction that would make executing long-term strategy far harder.

Crypto traders in 2025 are once again drawn to meme coins, with tokens like Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, and Pepe fueling speculation of 15× to 20× rallies in the next bull run. While those projections excite retail traders, the real buzz is around Ozak AI (OZ)—a presale project priced at just $0.01 that has already raised over $3 million. Unlike meme tokens that thrive on hype alone, Ozak AI combines artificial intelligence and blockchain, with bold forecasts of a 100× return, turning even modest allocations—like $250—into potentially $25,000.

Meme Coins Still Attract Traders

Meme tokens remain one of the most popular segments of the crypto market, thanks to their viral appeal and community-driven culture. Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, and Pepe have all delivered explosive gains in past bull runs, with some early investors seeing thousands of percent in returns. Analysts now predict these coins could deliver another 15× to 20× surge, pushing them to new highs if social sentiment heats up.

Yet, while meme coins can generate quick profits, their growth remains tied to hype cycles and market mood swings. For many investors, the question isn’t whether meme coins can run again—it’s whether there are better opportunities for sustainable exponential growth elsewhere.

Ozak AI Presale Momentum

This is where Ozak AI (OZ) is attracting serious attention. Currently in Stage 5 of its presale, OZ is priced at just $0.01 per token and has already raised over $3 million, a clear sign of investor demand. Positioned at the intersection of AI and blockchain, Ozak AI offers innovation-driven potential that meme coins often lack.

The presale hype is being fueled by comparisons to early-stage projects like Solana and Polygon, which started small before delivering life-changing returns to their early adopters. Investors are rushing to secure OZ at its ground-floor price before later stages drive it higher.

From $250 to $25,000—The 100× ROI Example

At just $0.01 per token, Ozak AI offers the kind of asymmetric upside investors dream of. A $250 allocation today secures 25,000 tokens. If Ozak AI climbs to $1 in the coming years, that same $250 could be worth $25,000.

This math highlights why investors are experiencing FOMO (fear of missing out). Unlike meme coins, where the upside might cap out at 20×, Ozak AI offers the possibility of 100× or more, making it one of the most talked-about presales of 2025.

Why Ozak AI Stands Out

The difference between Ozak AI and meme tokens comes down to vision and utility. By embedding AI into decentralized applications, OZ aims to create smarter, adaptive blockchain systems with real-world use cases. This innovation gives it staying power, while its low presale entry point makes it highly accessible. Whales accumulating alongside retail investors further validate the project’s credibility and potential.

While meme coins may chase 20× rallies in the next bull run, Ozak AI’s $0.01 presale price and $3 million raised offer investors the chance at 100× returns. The possibility of turning $250 into $25,000 is fueling massive interest and positioning Ozak AI as one of 2025’s breakout projects. For those chasing life-changing upside rather than short-term hype, Ozak AI is quickly becoming the presale to watch.

 About Ozak AI

 Ozak AI is a blockchain-based crypto project that provides an innovative platform that focuses on predictive AI and advanced data analytics for financial markets. Through machine learning algorithms and decentralized community technologies, Ozak AI enables real-time, accurate, and actionable insights to help crypto lovers and corporations make the perfect choices.

For more, visit

Website: https://ozak.ai/

Telegram: https://t.me/OzakAGI

Twitter: https://x.com/ozakagi

A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration acted unlawfully when it directed federal agencies to fire tens of thousands of probationary employees earlier this year.

But in a decision underscoring the reach of recent U.S. Supreme Court interventions, the judge stopped short of ordering their reinstatement.

According to Reuters, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, reaffirmed his earlier finding that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) overstepped in February when it ordered agencies to terminate roughly 25,000 probationary employees en masse. These workers—generally those with less than a year of service, though some were longtime federal employees in newly assigned roles—were dismissed under what unions described as a politically driven directive masquerading as performance-based termination.

Unions, nonprofits, and the state of Washington sued to block the action, calling it one of the most sweeping purges of federal personnel in recent memory.

Ordinarily, Alsup wrote, the remedy would be straightforward: “set aside OPM’s unlawful directive and unwind its consequences, returning the parties to the ex ante status quo, and as a consequence, probationers to their posts.”

But he noted that the Supreme Court’s recent moves effectively tied his hands. In April, the high court paused an earlier injunction from Alsup that had required six agencies to reinstate about 17,000 workers while litigation proceeded. That intervention sent a strong signal, Alsup wrote, that the Court would likely overrule lower court efforts to directly reinstate federal employees dismissed under executive authority.

“Too much had happened since the Supreme Court’s April decision,” he added, pointing out that many of the dismissed workers had since found new jobs while the administration continued to restructure the federal workforce.

Limited Relief

Instead, Alsup crafted a narrower remedy. He ordered 19 agencies—including the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury—to correct employees’ personnel files by November 14. The agencies must update records to show that the mass terminations were not due to legitimate performance failures and are prohibited from enforcing any similar OPM directives in the future.

That order, Alsup said, still addresses the harm caused by what he described as OPM’s “pretextual termination ‘for performance.’”

The ruling drew swift reaction from federal employee unions. Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the decision “makes clear that thousands of probationary workers were wrongfully fired, exposes the sham record the government relied upon, and requires the government to tell the wrongly terminated employees that OPM’s reasoning for firing them was false.”

Kelley emphasized, however, that the absence of reinstatement leaves many workers permanently displaced despite the finding of illegality.

The case underscores the ongoing tension between executive authority and judicial oversight in federal employment matters. Traditionally, probationary employees enjoy fewer protections than tenured federal staff, but mass terminations on this scale are unprecedented. Trump’s administration has argued that the firings were part of an efficiency push, while critics see them as an ideological reshaping of the civil service.

The Supreme Court’s intervention earlier this year reflects its broader trend of limiting judicial remedies that intrude on executive personnel decisions. The Court effectively constrained lower courts from undoing executive branch employment actions, even if deemed unlawful, by stepping in on the so-called “shadow docket” to halt reinstatements.

The litigation is not over, but Alsup’s ruling sets the terms going forward. Agencies must repair records to clear workers’ reputations, but absent a shift from the Supreme Court, reinstatement appears unlikely. The result leaves thousands of careers disrupted, with employees validated in principle but denied the practical relief of getting their jobs back.

For unions, the ruling provides vindication but also fuels frustration. For the Trump administration, it offers partial cover—its directive deemed unlawful, but its broader workforce restructuring largely preserved.

The November 14 deadline now looms as the key date when agencies must formally correct the files of those affected, a step that could help workers secure future employment but falls short of undoing the largest federal workforce shakeup in decades.