Quote:
Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Huh, so you're theory is that, if you pay the top guy enough, you can attract tons of talent for next to nothing? You should form a start-up law firm under that theory--overpay yourself and watch the worker bees flock to you. You could seek guidance from that girl nox4 posted on fashion.
|
The ruling came as a big surprise to lawyers following the case, quoted in this morning’s WSJ:
“Stunning” is how Jim Barrall, head of the executive-compensation and benefit practice at Latham & Watkins, described the findings. “I have never heard of a court decision finding a breach of fiduciary duty based on the failure to disclose all the numbers” about the size of a supplemental pension. The opinion, suggests Barrall, means that at a minimum CEOs will have to make sure “the board understands the numbers and all the elements of the [leader’s] pay package and how they work together.”
“Extraordinary” was how Christopher Clark, a white-collar defense lawyer at LeBoeuf Lamb, described the ruling. “I’m not used to seeing cases with this many facts and this many depositions decided without a trial.” Clark thinks Grasso has strong grounds for an appeal. Said Clark: “I can’t image the parties will be able to get close to a [settlement] agreement with the ruling hanging out there.”
