I
In a new filing with the SEC, Icahn says he may look to add his own nominees to the company's board. But it could get complicated. BusinessWeek reports that "Changing the board at Lions Gate would be a tricky matter. The company is initially registered in Canada, which requires that the board be limited to 18 members. Of those members, at least half must be Canadian for the company to maintain the liberal tax credits for film production from that country that it now enjoys, according to officials with knowledge of the company's bylaws."
This is a classic example of the garbage that concerned shareholders run into when they look to make changes at poorly-managed companies.
If President Obama and the Congress really want to go about fixing the US economy for long-term success, they should start with a shareholder activism stimulus: repealing bad laws and creating new ones all with the goal of making it easier for disgruntled shareholders to kick out underperforming bureaucrats.
Otherwise, corporations in America and abroad will continue to be slaves to the interests of the lucky few who sit in the executive suite, regardless of how small their stakes in the company happen to be.
Will Rich Ross really have a positive impact on Disney's movie operations?
Consumers sick of recession, may spend extra on holidays
Corrections, seasonality and Santa Claus
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-24-2009 @ 4:18PM
BHarrison said...
This illustrates one of the problems with 90% of the wealth of our nation in the hands of the top 3% - 5% of our population.
The problem is that these ultra wealthy now possess the ownership of the majority of the corporate stocks. They can vote in their "rubber stamp" Boards of Directors to do their bidding for their sole best interests, regardless of the "best interests of our nation and its citizens".
Isn't Carl Icahn one of the oler "robber barons"? Wasn't Carl one of thecorporate raiders who played a pivotal part in the dismantling of our previous solvent corporations where employees had long term benefits that provided economic stablilty for our society.
It appears that we are a nation who has given up and/or been defrauded of the wealth of our nation due to our Corrupt Congressmen being "bought off" to do the bidding of the ultra wealthy even back in Carl Icahn's heydays?
While I am a capitalist a heart, I firmly believe that reasonable and prudent regulations coupled with effective and impartial oversight is necessary to maintain the stability and the INTEGRITY of our economy.
Just as the middle and lower classes are now being subjected to horrific economic "adjustments", the ONLY long term solution that I can envision is that the wealthy must incurr an appropriate "adjustment of their previously ill gotten wealths". If these parties incur a 50% tax on their wealth, where else in the world are they going to go to, especially with the global economic collapse?
I image that there may be a few of the top 3% - 5% wealthy who may not have participated in "questionable business deals" to enhance their wealth; but there are MILLIONS of "innocent" middle class and lower class citizens who have been financially devastated by the fraudulent and irresponsible actions of the ultra wealthy and/or their minions.
In this "change" to "re-balance our economy", there needs to be a comparable "adjustment "at the top" to match the "adjustments" at the bottom". Otherwise, all of this is merely developing a TWO CLASS SOCIETY, substantially devastating the middle class.
Yes, this will be labelled as "herescy" by some "capitlaists"; but "common sense" dictates that there must be adjustments at BOTH the top and the bottom of our economy. So far, the middle and lower classes have basically, relatively pseaking, bearing 98% of the impact of these economic CRIMES by the ultra wealthy and CEOs.
It is time for reasonable change to take place. Drastic times call for drastic actions . . . and reasonable "capitalism" can be maintained throughout all of this.
2-24-2009 @ 5:21PM
davis10oregon1 said...
CAREFUL ! IT GOES LIKE THIS:
DON`T " T " ON ME.
WHY YOU OUGHT NOT TO ?
THE VENOMOUS BITE, THAT WAS THE LOGIC FOR NOT THREADING ON TO.
IT IS YOUR THING.
HEY ! ZAC,
WAZZZ-UP WITH THAT LAST PARAGRAPH ? U SEEING SOME LIGHT, BRO