U.S. Corp Execs at their Best:5-20-04 Former Texas Oil Exec starts serving sentence of over 24 Yrs

[dmcowen674]

Latest Corporate Thug:

5-20-2004 Former VP & executive assistant to CEO of Enterasys Networks one of several former top executives charged with conspiring to inflate the company's revenue at a cost of $1.3 billion to investors.

3-6-2004 <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;cid=568&amp;ncid=749&amp;e=2&amp;u=/nm/20040306/bs_nm/financial_sec_fortune_dc">SEC Targets More Fortune 500 Names</a>

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is bringing more financial fraud cases against big-name, Fortune 500 companies, said a top SEC enforcement official on Saturday.

Equipped with a bigger staff and faced with a wave of corporate scandals, the SEC brought 199 financial fraud cases in 2003, and 34 of them involved Fortune 500 companies, said Susan Markel, SEC Enforcement Division chief accountant.

"In part, it's our willingness to take on the larger cases and it's also the resources we've been given to pursue them," she told reporters after a presentation at a conference in Washington.

Until its recent sharp budget increases, the SEC had been reluctant to take on the armies of lawyers fielded by major corporations, but that's changing, securities lawyers said.


1-19-2004 <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;ncid=&amp;e=5&amp;u=/usatoday/20040119/bs_usatoday/roydisneyincreaseseffortstoousteisner">Roy Disney increases efforts to oust Eisner</a>

Friday, Roy Disney unveiled a revamped version of his anti-Eisner Web site, SaveDisney.com. Disney, nephew of founder Walt Disney, and ally Stanley Gold quit the board on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, and publicly called for Eisner's head. The Web site paints the $27 billion company as the tragic kingdom and invites shareholders and consumers to "Join Our Fight."

This is a real struggle in which Michael and 10-20 suits surrounding him continue to reward themselves with bonuses and raises," "They're doing it on the backs of the workers, the little guys, and they're doing it on the backs of the parks."

Last week, Roy Disney also attacked Eisner's decision to close the Orlando animation studio that made films such as Lilo &amp; Stitch. While some of the 258 staffers will move to the headquarters in Burbank, Calif., most will lose their jobs.

"Eisner's de-emphasis of creativity and total indifference to the impact his decisions have on the people who helped to make the company great," said Roy Disney, 74, the last of the founding family to work at the company.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

WOW, now that's cool, what Roy Disney is doing. It's sad what's happened to Disney under Eisner's "guidance". Walt was a real visionary and a man of integrity, it's sad to see his legacy perverted by unethical businessmen.

Jason

 

[CaptnKirk]

One of the first thing Eisner did when he took the lead of Disney was to double the admitance price at the theme parks.
"They have already driven the distance to get here, and if they will pay $ 22.50 apiece to get in, they won't turn around
and leave if it costs them $ 45, they'll go ahead and pay so they won't dissapoint the kids."

Then he lowered the age brackets to where a 3 year old child has to pay full 'Adult' price for the tickets.

More than doubled the gate take for the parks, and helped himself and his suits to the proffits,
while neglecting the betterment of those grunt workers who have to do all the work.

Disney himself wanted the experience to be for children and did all he could to keep their prices down
for the betterment of the family experience.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
One of the first thing Eisner did when he took the lead of Disney was to double the admitance price at the theme parks.
"They have already driven the distance to get here, and if they will pay $ 22.50 apiece to get in, they won't turn around
and leave if it costs them $ 45, they'll go ahead and pay so they won't dissapoint the kids."

Then he lowered the age brackets to where a 3 year old child has to pay full 'Adult' price for the tickets.

More than doubled the gate take for the parks, and helped himself and his suits to the proffits,
while neglecting the betterment of those grunt workers who have to do all the work.

Disney himself wanted the experience to be for children and did all he could to keep their prices down
for the betterment of the family experience.

Aren't you proud of these Enterprising U.S. Corp Execs? Aren't you proud to be an American?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Yes, I am VERY proud to be an American, but NO I am not proud of unethical businessmen. Not all businessmen are unethical, however, they're just the only ones you ever hear about. Most are honest, hardworking men who want to make a good living through an honest means.

Jason

 

[gsaldivar]

So what has Michael Eisner done that was unethical?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Well, to be fair there isn't anything morally wrong with raising the prices if the market will indeed bear it, but it strikes me that he's not holding true to Walt's vision, and that bugs me. In any case, I'm not *aware* that he's done anything for which he should be incarcerated, but I applaud those who want to return Disney to its original vision and are calling for Eisner's removal.

Jason

 

[gsaldivar]

Just a thought...

If a more profitable future for Disney lies in a transition away from the company's founding vision, wouldn't that be an honorable pursuit?

Or should a company remain tied to its founding mission regardless of the profitability of that pursuit?

If Disney were to go bankrupt by blindly pursuing its founding mission, and failing to adapt to a changing marketplace - tens of thousands of people would no longer have a job.

Would we then say that actions of Disney's management were honorable, or unethical and self-serving?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You certainly have a good and valid point. I don't know what Disney's financial outlook was *prior* to Eisner's taking over, so I really can't comment intelligently on the issue. My thought is that you should stay true to your vision and refine it little by little as appropriate, but hopefully don't lose sight of your principles. Obviously if your principles lead you to bankruptcy you chose the wrong principles to uphold, so my point might be utterly moot if Disney was cash-strapped before Eisner came along.

Jason

 

[gsaldivar]

Without addressing whether Disney's current mission is better or worse than it's founding mission, I'd like to point out...

The choice of Disney's mission - whether it be adapted to a changing marketplace, or left completely unchanged - is a decision which falls solely on the CEO.

With that being said, at any time Disney's Board of Directors feels that Michael Eisner is failing to properly manage the company, they can choose to replace him.

 

[gsaldivar]

I also noticed that dmcowen674 left out the positive note from the article regarding Eisner's performance...

Powered by such hits such as Finding Nemo, a computer animation film released under its deal with Pixar, and Pirates of the Caribbean, Disney became the first studio to top $3 billion in global box office sales in 2003. Cable networks are strong, and theme parks seem to have stabilized. Even struggling ABC could return to profitability in 2005, CFO Tom Staggs says.

While Disney shares fell from a peak of $43 in 2000 to less than $14 in 2002, the price rose 43% in 2003. Shares are up about 7% since the dissident board members quit, closing at $24.85 on Friday.

Disney also is reforming governance. This month, the board re-elected former senator George Mitchell, who joined in 1995, as presiding director. It also adopted stricter governance standards, added two independent directors and reclassified John Bryson of Edison International as a "non-independent outside director" because his wife works at Lifetime, partially owned by Disney.

"Results are back on the upswing, and Eisner is addressing the corporate governance issue. As long as he continues to meet or exceed shareholder expectations, he'll be fine," predicts analyst Michael Gallant of CIBC World Markets.

 

[quikah]

I completely agree that the vision has been lost at Disney, but it is not like Eisner is running the company into the ground. Disney was the #1 studio at the box office last year (by almost $400mil). Kind of makes it hard to claim that Eisner is ruining the company.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Way back in 1984 Saul Steinberg attempted an unfriendly takeover attempt of the Disney Enterprise.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/features/3421/index1.html">In 1984, Steinberg attempted his second high-profile takeover. This time, the target was Disney.
Although it didn't work, Steinberg walked away nearly $40 million richer,
having "greenmailed" the company into paying him a premium for selling it his stake.</a>

There was a weak management structure at Disney Enterprises at the time, so Michael Eisner
was hired to direct the prevention of the Hostile Takeover. His solution was to manipulate a deal
that paid Stienberg off to NOT do the takeover, and they just paid him $ 40 million to walk away
and agree to leave the Disney Enterprize alone. $ 40 million for doing nothing.

Then Eisner got the Disney Board of Directors to annoint him as the CEO and he began to
overcharge eveyone that came to all Disney Attractions, which of course made money -
as I mentioned befor, if a family has already spent over $ 1,000 to travel to, and secure lodging
for their family on a trip to Florida, Anaheim, Tokyo, Even the Euro-Franco place, they are not
going to let the family down by not spending the extra $ 100 admission price when they get there.

The whole problem is that it did not follow what Old Wally wanted for the company to represent.
That's why the remaining Disney Namesake and his cohort are trying to get rid of Eisner,
to put it back on the path of being a Family Friendly company with a vision of the future that
is not just all about proffit for the Executives of the Enterprise.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Eisner got the Disney Board of Directors to annoint him as the CEO and he began to
overcharge eveyone that came to all Disney Attractions, which of course made money...

If you don't want to pay the price of admission, don't go to Disneyland. If Disney fails to sell enough tickets, they will be forced to lower the price of admission to a price that the market will bear.

The reason why Disney maintains the current price of admission is because the market is CAPABLE and WILLING to bear that cost.

The whole problem is that it did not follow what Old Wally wanted for the company to represent.
That's why the remaining Disney Namesake and his cohort are trying to get rid of Eisner,
to put it back on the path of being a Family Friendly company with a vision of the future that
is not just all about proffit for the Executives of the Enterprise.

In fact, since Disney's incorporation in 1952, they have accepted shareholder equity investments under the promise to maximize returns to those same shareholders.

The reason for the existence of any corporation, is to maximize returns on shareholder investments. If, as you say, Disney's goal were to be a "Family Friendly company" (and presumably forego all pursuit of profits), there would be little incentive for to formally structure the company into a corporation in the first place.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
One of the first thing Eisner did when he took the lead of Disney was to double the admitance price at the theme parks.
"They have already driven the distance to get here, and if they will pay $ 22.50 apiece to get in, they won't turn around
and leave if it costs them $ 45, they'll go ahead and pay so they won't dissapoint the kids."

Then he lowered the age brackets to where a 3 year old child has to pay full 'Adult' price for the tickets.

More than doubled the gate take for the parks, and helped himself and his suits to the proffits,
while neglecting the betterment of those grunt workers who have to do all the work.

Disney himself wanted the experience to be for children and did all he could to keep their prices down
for the betterment of the family experience.

Aren't you proud of these Enterprising U.S. Corp Execs? Aren't you proud to be an American?

I'm proud, aren't you, comrade?

The price of admission to Disneyland has never been a consideration for me or my family or friends. If anything the price being high means the park will be less crowded. They could charge $5 per person and suddenly Disneyland is where everybody stops by for lunch and drops their kids off every night during the Summer and the lines are 5 hours long.

The price is not outrageous. People aren't forced to go, yet they continue to show up at the gates? Why? Could it be because the price is still worth it to them?

If you are ashamed of being an American because of the behavior of corporate executives, then, please, by all means, feel free to move to a non-capitalist nation where this kind of thing never ever happens.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

To be fair (and here I go remembering things that make me feel dated, LOL), back when admission was a lot cheaper, you had to buy tickets to get on the rides, and you only got so many in a booklet, then you had to buy another booklet. I wonder if it might actually end up being cheaper this way? I was too young to remember what the ticket books cost back then, so I can't make an intelligent argument one way or the other

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

If you are ashamed of being an American because of the behavior of corporate executives, then, please, by all means, feel free to move to a non-capitalist nation where this kind of thing never ever happens.

I think it's *appropriate* to be ashamed of *unethical* executives (again, I know of no unethical behavior by Eisner, just that he hasn't kept to Walt's vision...) *ESPECIALLY* for Capitalists. Every time someone turns a huge profit through dishonest means by abusing the Liberty that our founding fathers gave us, they hand another weapon to the anti-Capitalists to use in their fight to tear freedom down.

It's sad, but as especially the last couple of years have shown (Enron, etc.) unethical businessmen truly are the *worst* enemies of Capitalism. They do more harm than the Socialists ever could.

Jason

 

[Drift3r]

j/king ---> The majority of people who have problems with Esiener's "plans" are those religous wackos who want Disney to be like the old days. You know those old days when they promoted "Christian values" like not having black people in their films unless they were servants, criminals or slaves. Or gays being protrayed as merry people or turn-coat communists and protraying women who knew to not question their husbands decisions and who stayed at home to raised the kids. Sorry but Disney has to move toward the future and if that means producing sexually or violent oriented porn like movies to turn a buck then so be it. They have to meet the demands of their audience to a degree and can't be held back by a few religous wackos. <---j/king

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

It's sad, but as especially the last couple of years have shown (Enron, etc.) unethical businessmen truly are the *worst* enemies of Capitalism. They do more harm than the Socialists ever could.

I TOTALLY AGREE that unethical business management can cause irreperable harm to capitalism and the perception of the US business environment.

However,

I don't think anyone has yet provided any evidence of unethical business behavior by senior management at Disney.

In fact, Disney has been lauded for its efforts to reform corporate governance in the post-Enron world:

Corporations seeking guidance on how to govern themselves in the post-Enron world should look at Walt Disney Co. In a dramatic reversal, Disney has gone from having one of the worst boards of directors in Corporate America to having one of the best. Michael Eisner, a reluctant reformer, is now showing other CEOs how to clean up their governance messes while restoring investor trust in the process.

With oversight from governance guru Ira Millstein, Disney now restricts key audit and compensation committees to independent directors. Outside directors hold meetings away from management, and they are restricted in the number of other boards they can sit on. Directors must own at least $100,000 in company stock, giving them a direct stake in the company's performance. And Disney is cutting all business relationships between board members and the company.

Disney also is bolstering the credibility of its financial reporting by using different firms for auditing and consulting. Disney is no longer repricing options, either. That forces managers to take the hit when things go wrong--just like other shareholders. Eisner's own rich compensation will be more tightly tied to refurbishing Disney's earnings prospects. link

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Interesting post, GS, nice find!

As I mentioned, too, I'm not aware of any *unethical* behavior on the part of Eisner. As far as I can see the whole reason they want him gone has to do with not being in line enough with Walt's vision. That's not necessarily a *bad* thing, though I do have a lot of respect for Walt. He truly was a visionary.

Why Religious wackos would support *any* Disney, past or present, is beyond me. Disney was always about happiness in *this* world, and that's not a very Christian value.

Jason

 

[conjur]

New York Pension Fund Joins Expanding List of Disney CEO Foes

Feb. 27--BURBANK, Calif. - Michael D. Eisner suffered another series of setbacks Thursday when New York and a growing list of other state pension funds announced they would vote against re-electing Eisner to Disney's board of directors at the company's annual shareholders meeting next week.

The announcement comes a day after the California Public Employees' Retirement System said it would not support Eisner. CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the United States, cited a "dismal" performance by Disney over the past five years in making its decision.

"I call on Disney directors to separate the positions of chairman and chief executive and to replace Mr. Eisner as soon as possible," said New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, the trustee for what is the second-largest public pension fund in the nation.

In all, the state pension funds in California, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia are among those that have come out against Eisner, who has been under heavy fire since a Feb. 11 hostile takeover bid for Disney from Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable operator.

"Under Michael Eisner's management, Disney has not performed well over the last several years," Hevesi said. "His tight control over Disney decision-making and his role as both CEO and chairman of the board call into question his commitment to corporate governance reforms."

While Eisner and the company appear to have weathered the Comcast bid, which was rejected last week by the board, Eisner is clearly feeling threatened in his nearly 20-year reign as head of the entertainment conglomerate that is comprised of theme parks, a television network, a movie studio and many other holdings.

Eisner flew to Ohio on Thursday to meet with pension fund officials in that state, which could announce its decision as soon as today.

The loss of support from the pension funds comes as such influential Wall Street players as Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis & Co. have also called for Eisner's ouster from the board.

Connecticut Treasurer Denise Nappier issued a statement Thursday saying the state's $20 billion fund will also vote against Eisner but support the company's other board members up for re-election.

But she said she remains concerned about the board's reluctance to separate the roles of chairman and CEO.

"Disney is at a crossroads and the vote of shareholders next week will reflect an unparalleled mix of uneasiness, frustration, progress and optimism," Nappier said in a statement. "Investors must cut through the antagonism, mixed signals and competing interests."

The Walt Disney Co. issued a statement Thursday in support of Eisner and the company's performance in the areas of corporate governance and in the building of shareholder value, which it said is "indisputable."

Shares of Disney stock climbed by 1.6 percent, or 43 cents a share, Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange to close at $26.73 a share.

"Disney management and the board believe the company has well laid out its key long-term strategies for achieving attractive double-digit earnings growth, which is reinforced by the strong recent performance of Disney shares," the company said in a release issued after the pension funds made their announcements.

Since Eisner is running unopposed, his re-election to the board is not in doubt, especially since he continues to have the support of other institutional shareholders and a number of large mutual funds.

But dissident shareholders Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold -- former board members who are leading a campaign to oust Eisner -- are hoping to achieve at least a 20 percent vote against Eisner, which they believe would send a strong message that it is time for new leadership.

"Anything higher than 20 percent to me is a high number," said Charles M. Elson, director of the University of Delaware business college's Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. "Even 10 percent would be nothing to sneeze at. The higher you go, the more damaging it gets. The shareholders of the company have to be unified, otherwise it makes it very hard to move forward with this division."

"It would be a wake-up call to the board," Elson said. "They would have to rethink their management with that large a number."

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
The reason for the existence of any corporation, is to maximize returns on shareholder investments. If, as you say, Disney's goal were to be a "Family Friendly company" (and presumably forego all pursuit of profits), there would be little incentive for to formally structure the company into a corporation in the first place.

Sad but true. Why does it always have to be about making more money?

 

[dmcowen674]

Now that the Feds have got the heinous 62 year old Rich Corporate white lady, it's time they start going after some bigger boys:

3-6-2004 SEC Targets More Fortune 500 Names

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is bringing more financial fraud cases against big-name, Fortune 500 companies, said a top SEC enforcement official on Saturday.

Equipped with a bigger staff and faced with a wave of corporate scandals, the SEC brought 199 financial fraud cases in 2003, and 34 of them involved Fortune 500 companies, said Susan Markel, SEC Enforcement Division chief accountant.

"In part, it's our willingness to take on the larger cases and it's also the resources we've been given to pursue them," she told reporters after a presentation at a conference in Washington.

Until its recent sharp budget increases, the SEC had been reluctant to take on the armies of lawyers fielded by major corporations, but that's changing, securities lawyers said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting just how far will the U.S. Government go in eating it's own tail? Because afterall they are paid for by the very same Corporate Thugs they are now targeting.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Now that the Feds have got the heinous 62 year old Rich Corporate white lady, it's time they start going after some bigger boys:

3-6-2004 SEC Targets More Fortune 500 Names

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is bringing more financial fraud cases against big-name, Fortune 500 companies, said a top SEC enforcement official on Saturday.

Equipped with a bigger staff and faced with a wave of corporate scandals, the SEC brought 199 financial fraud cases in 2003, and 34 of them involved Fortune 500 companies, said Susan Markel, SEC Enforcement Division chief accountant.

"In part, it's our willingness to take on the larger cases and it's also the resources we've been given to pursue them," she told reporters after a presentation at a conference in Washington.

Until its recent sharp budget increases, the SEC had been reluctant to take on the armies of lawyers fielded by major corporations, but that's changing, securities lawyers said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting just how far will the U.S. Government go in eating it's own tail? Because afterall they are paid for by the very same Corporate Thugs they are now targeting.

Good, Clinton let them run rampant for eight years and now under a Republican administration they are being brought to justice.

Deal with it.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Now that the Feds have got the heinous 62 year old Rich Corporate white lady, it's time they start going after some bigger boys:

3-6-2004 SEC Targets More Fortune 500 Names

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is bringing more financial fraud cases against big-name, Fortune 500 companies, said a top SEC enforcement official on Saturday.

Equipped with a bigger staff and faced with a wave of corporate scandals, the SEC brought 199 financial fraud cases in 2003, and 34 of them involved Fortune 500 companies, said Susan Markel, SEC Enforcement Division chief accountant.

"In part, it's our willingness to take on the larger cases and it's also the resources we've been given to pursue them," she told reporters after a presentation at a conference in Washington.

Until its recent sharp budget increases, the SEC had been reluctant to take on the armies of lawyers fielded by major corporations, but that's changing, securities lawyers said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting just how far will the U.S. Government go in eating it's own tail? Because afterall they are paid for by the very same Corporate Thugs they are now targeting.

Good, Clinton let them run rampant for eight years and now under a Republican administration they are being brought to justice.

Deal with it.

Yea, Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, Ford, Nixon, Reagan, They all did. You Deal with it.