Disney Accused of Misleading Investors About Streaming Revenue

DCBaker

Premium Member
Original Poster
Here are the details from Bloomberg Law.

"The Walt Disney Co.'s controversial reorganization in October 2020 under a new CEO facilitated a scheme to hide steep costs associated with its Disney+ streaming service, an investor alleges in a proposed class action.

Disney, its then-CEO, Robert Chapek, and other executives are named as defendants in the suit, filed May 12 in the US District Court for the Central District of California by a pension fund.

They “repeatedly misled investors about the success of the Disney+ platform by concealing the true costs of the platform, concealing the expense and difficulty of maintaining robust Disney+ subscriber growth, and claiming that the platform was on track to achieve profitability” by the end of fiscal year 2024, the complaint says.

The executives allegedly “debuted content created for Disney+ initially on a legacy platform in order to shift marketing and production costs onto that platform,” according to the plaintiff, the Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund.

Chapek’s reorganization “represented a dramatic departure from Disney’s historical reporting structure” and caused controversy within the company because it redirected power and control from creative content executives to Chapek’s lieutenant Kareem Daniel, the pension fund alleges. Daniel is among the defendants.

Chapek was later replaced by longtime previous CEO Robert Iger. Iger’s first steps upon his return in November 2022 included calling for another reorganization and announcing Daniel’s departure.

Disney’s stock price suffered several jolts as information emerged about disappointing Disney+ subscriber growth and company financial results, the pension fund says.

The proposed class would include hundreds or thousands of members, the complaint estimates.

The pension fund seeks damages and injunctive relief on its securities fraud claims.

Disney didn’t immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Pitta LLP represent the fund and the proposed class.

The case is Local 272 Labor-Mgmt. Pension Fund v. The Walt Disney Co., C.D. Cal., No. 2:23-cv-03661, complaint filed 5/12/23."

 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
The nerve of some investors thinking that Disney would have to abide by normal business governance and GAAP principles! Can't use that alleged creativity with other people's money without due diligence.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Chapek reported in his last Quarter the biggest quarterly deficit of D+ to date.

What exactly was he "hiding"?

The worst thing Christine said about him (financial-wise) was not announcing moving some (hardly any at all by this time) D+ content to the linear channels. Which is not something that would have to be announced in advanced. Disney was already sending newly created content to theaters, D+, hulu, or TV at will all along.

It then came out in the end that Chapek was dumped for:
1. being nonchalant about that huge deficit​
2. seemingly coming under the influence of Perlmutter and Peltz​
3. tying the hands of creatives (and picking fights with talent) during his 'reorganization' which he thought would lead to more profits, not to hide losses​
4. bumbling the opposition to a certain FL piece of legislation​

If DIS stock dropped because of malfeasance, what's the reason for the drop in stock price of just about every other big studio?

The "guidance" was profitability by 2024. Which is not a legally binding contract.

Obviously things like global wars, pandemics, inflation, recession affect such things.

Disney then changed the guidance to be less rosy when it turned out you had to continually lose money in India by buying the very expensive Cricket League and only get an ARPU of less than a dollar from subs at the same time.

D+'s ARPU is half of Netflix. If it was as much as Netflix, it would be profitable. It's just math at this point. There's no reason (barring a very extended writers' strike) that Disney can't meet that goal still.
 

IanDLBZF

Well-Known Member
I can see this not ending well for Chapek, Mccarthy, or Daniel, and all three likely facing criminal charges and possible prison sentences. I also see Mccarthy either being fired or asked to resign.

This is definitely starting to sound like Enron all over again.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Well, I'm shocked to learn media executives have to cook the books to make a streaming business model look financially palatable.

But is it bad that I started giggling when I read that Bloomberg article? 😆

I'm filing this as Reason #57 why a legacy studio like Disney getting into streaming will never make financial sense to my tiny brain.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
I can see this not ending well for Chapek, Mccarthy, or Daniel, and all three likely facing criminal charges and possible prison sentences. I also see Mccarthy either being fired or asked to resign.

This is definitely starting to sound like Enron all over again.
Based on what? What specifically was their intentional malfeasance which they enacted in which they knew it would not benefit the company and its worth in the end?

You can sue for practically anything. Over 80%-95% of suits get dismissed before going to trial.

And the ones that don't get dismissed wind up being settled such that of all suits filed, only about 2% go to trial.

I don't see the smoke here, let alone any fire.
 

TsWade2

Well-Known Member
Very interesting! As much as I gave him a chance and I appreciate that he tries to end the political things at Disney (I'm sorry), he screwed everything up on Disney. Therefore, serves him right!😤
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom