The Tide Is Turning!!!

[Goofyposter]

Investors urge Disney board to find new chief
By Tim Burt, Media Editor
Published: March 11 2004 19:21 | Last Updated: March 11 2004 19:21


Dissident shareholders at Walt Disney are considering possible legal action against the entertainment group if the board fails to begin the search for a new chief executive to replace Michael Eisner.


Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, the former Disney directors who resigned from the board last December, are to seek assurances from non-executive directors that a formal succession process will begin at the company led by Mr Eisner for the past 18 years.

The move follows the board's decision last week to split the roles of chairman and chief executive after 43 per cent of shareholders withheld their support for Mr Eisner's re-appointment at Disney's annual meeting in Philadelphia.

Officials close to Mr Disney and Mr Gold, who orchestrated a shareholder campaign against Mr Eisner, said there was a case for legal action if the board did not "take fundamental steps to begin a search" for a successor.

{YES, There IS!}

Executives at Disney, where the board has expressed strong support for Mr Eisner, dismissed that threat. "This is a campaign of lies and distortion and people can see it for what it is," according to one senior insider.

The dissident shareholders have also been accused of creating a climate of uncertainty that encouraged Comcast, the cable giant, to launch a near-$60bn hostile bid for Disney last month. The board has rejected that approach.

The company insists it has already begun giving more emphasis to succession issues, which will be discussed again at a two-day board meeting next month.

{Yeah....'right'}

That meeting will be the first formal board meeting chaired by George Mitchell, the former presiding director who was named chairman last week.

{Ei$ner's 'good buddy'}

Disney this week confirmed it was in the process of amending Mr Eisner's current employment contract following the change. In a statement, it said: "Mr Eisner will receive no greater economic benefit than he would currently have under the present agreement."

{So the GaZillion in compensation is enough for his 'demotion' ?}

 

[dcentity2000]

"Well hi there everybody!"

I heard that in America a guy sued Mac Donalds - and won - because eating their food made him fat.

Point is you can sue for almost anything in corporate America and stand a good chance of winning, no matter what.

ps. A Mr. Ronald McDonald of Scotland is taking Mac Donalds to court over "emotional torture" caused by similarity of name. The hearing continues



Rich::

 

[GBHost]

"I heard that in America a guy sued Mac Donalds - and won "

There has been a few such lawsuits against the fast food industry in the U.S. in the last year or two, but, sorry, all of them have been thrown out of court - i.e. "the guy" didn't win.

 

[dcentity2000]

"Well hi there everybody!"

I just double checked - one did. Mad, isn't it?

He had not eaten an unreasonable amount to cause obesity and had not been provided with reasonable cautions by the company.

Things like this are just mad.

In an unrelated matter, Mac Donalds is pulling 'Super Size' meals, at least on this side of the continent and are researching into lower fat menus.



Rich::

 

[GBHost]

"I just double checked - one did. Mad, isn't it?"

Not to run this into the ground, but what are your sources for this?

I had done a bit of research before I made my claim and have found only contradictory information. Following is a quote from today's Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1035557,00.html), which I believe is one of your "hometown" publications:


"Lawsuits of this ilk have so far failed to get through the courts. A federal judge in New York dismissed two cases last year that blamed McDonald’s for making people fat. "

So perhaps it's not as mad a world as one might believe.

 

[dcentity2000]

The source is a law report which I have access to due to my being at university...

As they are pay resources, usually topping quite frightening fees, I'll not be able to post a public link, but when I have time I shall post the case note and judgement exerts. Currently I'm at home celebrating my brother's 16th

The case was granted appeal and the judgement was quashed and even though this makes the initial decision somewhat irrelevant it still exists in the books as an example of how stupid the world can be



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Apologies to all, I just got an eMail back from my professor who stated that the claim failed and was then taken to appeal.

He did, however, add that it only failed on a very minor point and that there had been hefty consequences.

So... in a way he won, but in the technical, which is what I claimed, he didn't.

Comment about 'it's a crazy world' still stands though, given the close battle - I originally thought that he had won simply because of the wording of the verdict, where apparently this scenario was discussed in some depth

So - apologies once again.



Rich::