3 ms·
People aren't mad that his contract is being honored, they're annoyed that there are no provisions for gross failure. As for actively facilitating the breach,
by semperdark 9y ago
People aren't mad that his contract is being honored, they're annoyed that there are no provisions for gross failure.
As for actively facilitating the breach, almost no CEO ever does. One of his jobs is to solve problems indirectly before they show up by appointing the right people to react to them. Appointing his college buddy as the chief of InfoSec was a gross failure to do that.
- dogruck 9y agoTotally fair response. Do you think the board failed to minimize the total financial impact, and that shareholders will now vote to replace most of the board seats? Shareholders run the company. Are we mad at the CEO, or mad at the shareholders?
- semperdark 9y agoIt's hard to say what will happen, but the shareholders would be justified in replacing board members over this. Shareholders don't run public companies directly, I think the farthest that you can logically assign blame is with the board. Did the board fail to minimize total financial impact? In this case, yes. At the same time, adding a "failure" provision to the contract may have scared off good CEOs. I find it unlikely that this CEO has created more value than an overall worse CEO who would have avoided this, but it depends on the outcome of the lawsuits and PR fallout.
- lowry 9y agoIsnt't it implied as part of any work contract? I am pretty sure it is the case everywhere in older Europe.
- semperdark 9y agoI'm not a lawyer, so I can't say, but with numbers like that the former CEO could afford to have an entire law firm working on the case for him. I can't imagine that implications would go very far.
- dogruck 9y agoI agree that the shareholders might be justified in assailing the board.