Disney Shareholders May Seek Another Meeting, N.Y. Post Reports

[wdwmagic]

By James Kraus
March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Dissident shareholders at Walt Disney Co. may try to hold another meeting and nominate new directors to force out Chief Executive Michael Eisner and Chairman George Mitchell, the New York Post reported.
Gregory Taxin, chief executive of the research company Glass, Lewis & Co. said investors opposed to Eisner such as the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the New York state pension system and Roy Disney are planning a written consent campaign to garner support for another gathering, the Post reported.
An unidentified official with one of the investment groups who opposed Eisner however said more pressure might force the board to make further concessions and eliminate the need for another meeting, the paper reported.
Eisner opponents were particularly angered by the decision to name Mitchell, considered a close ally of Eisner, as chairman. A spokeswoman for the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System said the group planned to ask the board to replace Mitchell, the Post reported.

 

[Shaman]

Now this worries me...what if the wrong (pro-Comcast takeover) nominations are made...

 

[cherrynegra]

I don't believe any of those people in the 43% group Wed want Comcast anywhere near Disney. Roy and Stan are opposed to Comcast as well. This could be a tactic to force the Board to show their hands in terms of a succession plan for Eisner. I think the nominations, if they do indeed take place, will be given a lot of consideration. I don't think they're going to rush into it.

 

[JediDisney]

I was one of the 43% and I can tell if there was one unanimous vote at the meeting in Philly, it was the vote against Comcast. Nobody wants it.

 

[cherrynegra]

I think people are confusing the whole shareholders revolt. They think we want new management in the form of a new company buying Disney. WRONG!! We want Disney independent. In every sense of the word.

 

[General Grizz]

Good to hear that, fellas.

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by cherrynegra
I don't believe any of those people in the 43% group Wed want Comcast anywhere near Disney. Roy and Stan are opposed to Comcast as well. This could be a tactic to force the Board to show their hands in terms of a succession plan for Eisner. I think the nominations, if they do indeed take place, will be given a lot of consideration. I don't think they're going to rush into it.

Let's get real here. The 43% was mostly from Institutional Investors, not people like you and me. Institutional investors want basically one thing - a return on their investment. They will sell their shares, given a good offer, to anyone, especially a successful company like Comcast, where the shares they will get have potential to do better. Read the papers and watch CNBC, many of them are in support of a Comcast/Disney deal. Roy has used these institutional investors for his campaign and may not be able to get them back in the cage , now that he has opened the door. He is walking a tightrope between what he wants for Disney (Independence, legacy, magic, etc.) and what they want (immediate returns of their investment).

The minute a good deal is offered, Disney's independence will be a thing of the past.

 

[JediDisney]

One thing I think everyone needs to look at is the business strength in a name. No businessman in his right mind, not even Brian Roberts, will remove the Disney name from the company. That has a maquee value that no amount of money can create. Any buyer of the company (which I would prefer not to happen) would have to realize that as much they are buying Disney and making it a part of their business, the name Disney is too valuable to throw into the subsidiary category.

And as far institutional investors selling at a moments notice, yes they may want to, but for political reasons, they have made the investors they represent aware of their positions. Which now means this political stace will also cause the investors to ask questions about why they were so concerned about the "magic" only to eventually follow the money. It is not a good political move to look two faced when not yet at the national level.

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by JediDisney
the name Disney is too valuable to throw into the subsidiary category.

And as far institutional investors selling at a moments notice, yes they may want to, but for political reasons, they have made the investors they represent aware of their positions. Which now means this political stace will also cause the investors to ask questions about why they were so concerned about the "magic" only to eventually follow the money. It is not a good political move to look two faced when not yet at the national level.

Jedi, I agree with your coments on the Disney Name - I don't belive anyone is dumb enough to cast off the Disney name.

Not too sure I agree with your view of the institutional investors. I agree that they are may also be walking a tigtrope. The bulk of the Institutional Invstors who said no were Pension Fund Trustees (In some cases elected officials). These pension fund trustees don't have "Investors". In 99% of these funds the people in the pension plan don't give a rat's a___ about who the fund is invested in. All they want to know is, is their money gonna be there when they retire. These votes were done for political and face saving reasons. They are now on the record demanding change, any change. That change will include a sale of Disney to the highest bidder. This way they did the right thing and made money for the investors/retirees.

 

[Pat X]

The Orlando Sentinel had an article today discussing this potential meeting/effort. However, many in the article say this tactic is not as easy as simply witholding proxy votes and historically hasn't been successful.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/orl-subizdisrecall07030704mar07,0,1897306.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

 

[JBSLJames]

Reminds me of a time when ITT Industries purchased Allis Chalmers pump division. In order to keep the name recognition, there was no initial change, then gradually, the name changed to ITT A-C Pump, until finally, they closed A-C Pump and that's all folks.

 

[cloudboy]

Think about it this way - you have three choices. Disney, Comcast, or somewhere in between.

The Disney name has immense value to it. Comcast has little. No matter how you would combine the two, the Comcast part of the name would devaluate the Disney name. So what name would you go with? You would go with Disney. As much as you possibly can. Friendly or hostile, they still can use the name - it is more likely to become Comcast a Disney company than Disney, a Comcast company.

If it comes to that.