Saturday, September 09, 2006

"Communist" Care...for the Rich

Nell Minnow, editor of Corporate Library (a shareholder rights advocate) gives an "F" rating to the publicly-traded NEWS CORP in which Rupert Murdock owns a 31.2% stake. She points out that "the people in the world best able to afford their luxury homes are the ones who don't have to pay for them." The "corporate state" subsidizes the rich.
This week NEWS CORP disclosed in an SEC filing that it paid $4.5 million in salary, and $21.2 million in bonuses. ON TOP OF THAT, it provides Murdock with a $50,500 per month housing/utilities "perk" -- another $606,000 value. According to Andrew Butcher, the NEWS CORP spokesman, this housing allowance is "for the convenience of the company" for Murdock to have a NY luxury apartment.
Clearly, "the Board" is not making decisions that could be justified by the Business Judgment Rule. The payment of a personal, and wildly excessive, expense of a highly paid executive who does not even live in NY, is inappropriate for a publicly-traded company. What is being traded is the gullibility of investors: I checked the paper -- NEWS CORP shares rose 16 cents on yesterday.

2 comments:

  1. OVERPAID CORPORATE MANAGERS. Southern California Ediso paid over $94 million in bonuses for managers. These managers fabricated reports in order to get approval for "bonuses" -- this amount is no top of their salaries. The scale of the fraud is staggering. But the BASIS for the manager's bonus claims is even more revealing of their predation: These are bonuses asserted in part FOR FRAUDULENTLY DOWN-PLAYING INJURIES TO WORKERS. LAT 9/15/2006, source: Public Utilities Commission. "Blatant fraud" per Aaron Johnson, Dep Director of PUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates.

    ReplyDelete
  2. TRIPLE-LAYER OF FRAUD. (1) The managers fabricated "reports"; (2) The managers designed "bonuses" for screwing customers and injured workers; (3) The managers hid the facts and numbers from the investigators. $94 million is just the amount of the bonuses. It does not take into account the proximately caused damage to the customers and injured workers.

    ReplyDelete