Calpers Votes NO!

[Pat X]

Yea...that's how I took it too...if I am wrong, SORRY! :veryconfu

 

[lebernadin]

Abstaining from voting in this context is considered a vote of no confidence.

However all it takes for the status quo to remain is a single vote of confidence for Eisner, according to one of the articles posting in this forum today. The article didn't go further into detail on this, so if someone here could enlighten us as to what "one vote" means....i doubt it would be a single shareholder because that would make the entire thing pointless, so i would guess it would be a single vote from a board member or greater entity than a single shareholder's vote. Again, i don't know, so hopefully someone can give us the facts.

 

[cherrynegra]

Originally posted by cherrynegra
Yes, and now Roy and Gold are having a meeting with the Ohio folks who run the pensions for that state. Here's a quote from bloomberg.com.

"Eisner and Disney director Robert Matschullat today will visit representatives of Ohio's pension funds, said Cynthia Richson, corporate governance officer at the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, which owned 4.6 million Disney shares and 4.88 million Comcast shares as of December.

Richson said Eisner agreed to a meeting after she told him last week she had questions about Disney's corporate governance. She said the Ohio State Teachers' Retirement System, which owns 4.1 million Disney shares, also would attend the meeting. "

Obviously I meant that Eisner and Matschullat were going to have the meeting. Ooops.:lookaroun

 

[garyhoov]

Originally posted by lebernadin
Abstaining from voting in this context is considered a vote of no confidence.

However all it takes for the status quo to remain is a single vote of confidence for Eisner, according to one of the articles posting in this forum today. The article didn't go further into detail on this, so if someone here could enlighten us as to what "one vote" means....i doubt it would be a single shareholder because that would make the entire thing pointless, so i would guess it would be a single vote from a board member or greater entity than a single shareholder's vote. Again, i don't know, so hopefully someone can give us the facts.

My understanding (and I haven't studied it much, so if anyone has more info, please correct me) is that Eisner is running for his office, but no one is opposing him. Since no one is opposing him, one vote from one shareholder will re-elect him.

Since no one is opposing him, the only option is to vote for him or withold your vote.

 

[lebernadin]

Wow, so this makes all these pension fund press releases pointless for this vote, since naturally more than a single shareholder's vote will go to Eisner. Its still pressure on the Board and Eisner to respond to this no confidence, but nevertheless, Eisner won't be going anywhere as a result of this vote. It seems the Board would have to make a 180 and drop their approval of Eisner before his contract is up for him to leave.

 

[garyhoov]

Originally posted by lebernadin
Wow, so this makes all these pension fund press releases pointless for this vote, since naturally more than a single shareholder's vote will go to Eisner. Its still pressure on the Board and Eisner to respond to this no confidence, but nevertheless, Eisner won't be going anywhere as a result of this vote. It seems the Board would have to make a 180 and drop their approval of Eisner before his contract is up for him to leave.

You're right. No matter what happens in this vote, Eisner will be CEO on March 4th however it will be far from meaningless.

A large number of withheld votes in a process that is designed to be a rubber stamp would send a very strong message to the board (don't forget their jobs are on the line also, and not responding to shareholder concerns is not a good way to keep your job). They will need to respond if there is a strong no-confidence showing.

If more than 30% of shareholders withold their votes, it's almost certain that Eisner is on his way out, in my opinion.