It was the wrong thread - Page 110

Penske_Account · 10-19-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Sure, w/o any suggestion from Dick.

is it really that easy? I suggest my raises all the time and never get them.......

Cletus Miller · 10-20-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
is it really that easy? I suggest my raises all the time and never get them.......

You're a CEO? At a highly profitable NFP where you hold the keys to admission to the board? I had no idea.

Hank Chinaski · 10-20-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Not actually trying to put you on the spot. I recognize that it's an exceptional case, but $130MM+ smacks of opportunism and greed when running an NFP.

dissent. doesn't rewarding the occasional NFP CEO increase the chance that good greedier people will be more likely to go into the NFP arena? hell the Salvation Army should drop a few mil on some schmuck- they'd have all the Santas they need in a minute.

Cletus Miller · 10-20-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hell the Salvation Army should drop a few mil on some schmuck- they'd have all the Santas they need in a minute.

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.

Penske_Account · 10-20-2006, 04:17 PM

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.”

Cletus Miller · 10-20-2006, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
[URL=http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/10/20/lawyers-call-grasso-ruling-stunning-and-extraordinary/]
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.”

This isn't already the case? Where's the problem with that? And the implication is that Grasso knew what his package contained (heh), but that the board did not. If so (which we don't know either way), then that's a fundamental flaw in the governance structure.

Penske_Account · 10-20-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
This isn't already the case? Where's the problem with that? And the implication is that Grasso knew what his package contained (heh), but that the board did not. If so (which we don't know either way), then that's a fundamental flaw in the governance structure.

the board has ultimate accountability. Grasso made a market deal and has been wrongly harassed by a political opportunist and wayward conflicted riddled judge.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-20-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the board has ultimate accountability. Grasso made a market deal and has been wrongly harassed by a political opportunist and wayward conflicted riddled judge.

How do you call something a "market deal" when it's not negotiated at normal arm's length, but rather at the length necessary for a reach-around?

Penske_Account · 10-20-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How do you call something a "market deal" when it's not negotiated at normal arm's length, but rather at the length necessary for a reach-around?

Define the positioning on that one.

Cletus Miller · 10-20-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Define the positioning on that one.

I'm quite certain it would be the board receiving the reach around and the assfucking, especially given that you think the board should be a named defendant.

Penske_Account · 10-20-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I'm quite certain it would be the board receiving the reach around and the assfucking, especially given that you think the board should be a named defendant.

they should be named as a defendant because they were derelict in their duty. in your scenario I am not sure how that plays out.

Cletus Miller · 10-20-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
they should be named as a defendant because they were derelict in their duty. in your scenario I am not sure how that plays out.

Too distracted by Grasso's bsd combined with the reach around to actually review the numbers? Or to notice that some of the numbers were missing?

Penske_Account · 10-20-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Too distracted by Grasso's bsd combined with the reach around to actually review the numbers? Or to notice that some of the numbers were missing?

The former is all on them, the latter is fraud. I don't know that there has been any accusation of that. Cite please?

Cletus Miller · 10-20-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The former is all on them, the latter is fraud. I don't know that there has been any accusation of that. Cite please?

I don't know that there has been either, but one implication of what you posted earlier is that it has not been the case that CEOs make their boards aware of what's actually in the package:

"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.'"

If the board isn't paying attention, then this would be an impossible task. If it is the norm that the information provided is not complete enough to be understood, then there is a new obligation on the CEO. I'm speculating here.

Penske_Account · 10-20-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I don't know that there has been either, but one implication of what you posted earlier is that it has not been the case that CEOs make their boards aware of what's actually in the package:

"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.'"

If the board isn't paying attention, then this would be an impossible task. If it is the norm that the information provided is not complete enough to be understood, then there is a new obligation on the CEO. I'm speculating here.

I read it as implying that Ramos doesn't know his ass from his elbow and the judgment will go down in flames on appeal.