News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Trust me, their top priority is a FL law that requires anyone in state government to resign their office if they decide to run for any Federal Government office. I seem to recall this whole Reedy Creek thing came about at a special session called for to address FL's home insurance woes (and that was prior to a couple of hurricanes that have certainly made matters worse).

I feel the GOVN won't change whatever 'plan' he has as his current fight seems to be against woke companies. I believe once the GOVN. calls a company 'woke', the state must sell any stocks the state holds in any pension fund. I further believe his followers still feel Disney is too woke.

EDIT to state 'federal government' as opposed to just 'government'
You're thinking of Special Session 2022C, where the Legislature had to vote on the Congressional districts of the state. "Special districts" was considered germane, so the RCID along with several other special districts were revoked.

Homeowners insurance will be considered at a special session next week.

 

CntrlFlPete

Well-Known Member
You're thinking of Special Session 2022C, where the Legislature had to vote on the Congressional districts of the state. "Special districts" was considered germane, so the RCID along with several other special districts were revoked.

Homeowners insurance will be considered at a special session next week.


.thanks! I was thinking of session 2022D for insurance (may 2022), but you are correct, this was april. Just knew this got done and the topic of insurance was moved down the road.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
.thanks! I was thinking of session 2022D for insurance (may 2022), but you are correct, this was april. Just knew this got done and the topic of insurance was moved down the road.
I'm confused how they name the sessions. Apparently next week's session is "2022A", although they've already had 2022C and 2022D. Huh? I think the lettering is based on the fiscal year because prior to those there was 2021A and 2021B. Therefore, this is the first special session in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023), hence "2022A".
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
From Bloomberg:

Disney Investor Demands Files Over Opposition to Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law


Highlights from the article:
  • Disney shareholder Kenneth Simeone is suing Disney to disclose internal records about the decision to oppose the Florida Parental Rights In Education act.
  • In his 22-page filing, Simeone claims that Disney caused "far-reaching" financial harm by opposing the law, specifically the disillusion of RCID.
  • Including in the filing: “The financial repercussions from Disney’s actions, and resulting harm to the company and its stockholders, have been swift and severe."
  • Quoting from the article: "The complaint is a so-called 'books and records' action, demanding documents that can be used to sue Disney directors over the decision to oppose the Florida law. Delaware judges often grant such file requests."
  • Disney has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

They're called Section 220 demands, and it wouldn't be shocking to see them win the rights to the records because, as mentioned therein, Delaware is pretty open to these requests.

Actually bringing a further shareholder action against Disney would likely be significantly harder, though.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
From Bloomberg:

Disney Investor Demands Files Over Opposition to Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law


Highlights from the article:
  • Disney shareholder Kenneth Simeone is suing Disney to disclose internal records about the decision to oppose the Florida Parental Rights In Education act.
  • In his 22-page filing, Simeone claims that Disney caused "far-reaching" financial harm by opposing the law, specifically the disillusion of RCID.
  • Including in the filing: “The financial repercussions from Disney’s actions, and resulting harm to the company and its stockholders, have been swift and severe."
  • Quoting from the article: "The complaint is a so-called 'books and records' action, demanding documents that can be used to sue Disney directors over the decision to oppose the Florida law. Delaware judges often grant such file requests."
  • Disney has declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Firewall but did they really spell it that way or has something been lost in translation?

specifically the disillusion of RCID.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
The threshold for a Section 220 demand in Delaware is low.

A Section 220 demand can provide the plaintiff access to all sorts of internal communications. Potentially, they could (for example) get Chapek's emails that are related to the complaint.

Information obtained through a Section 220 demand usually is confidential but a lot of what is obtained eventually can make its way into the public domain. This could result in awkward disclosures for Disney.

Disney could fight but when it comes to Section 220 demands, Delaware courts have not been sympathetic to companies. Disney's best course probably is to try to work amiably with the plaintiff. If they handle this properly and if the plaintiff can be mollified, Disney should be able to defuse this.

Whether the plaintiff has any success suing Disney for actual damages if they are not mollified, well, that’s an entirely different matter.
There is a limit to the information that can be obtained. In these types of actions the plaintiff has to define the complaint in detail and only information directly relating to the complaint is required to be turned over. The topic is typically required to be narrowly defined. So if a company decides to enter into an acquisition that goes bad a shareholder can request information on the merger plans and due diligence process to make sure there was no evidence of the deal going bad. I think these are also very common around bankruptcies. Shareholders want to know if execs anticipated the bankruptcy and especially if they sold shares prior to it. In other words you can’t just claim a general grievance like “mismanagement” and then gain access to all internal communications on a whim.

In this case I’d say it’s pretty unlikely Chapek or any other execs would have put a lot in writing on the topic and sent formal memos or even e-mails so mostly probably a PR stunt. I still think the Plaintiff has a challenge defining what the actual complaint is and more importantly how they were negatively impacted as a shareholder. If they attempt to claim the company will suffer financial losses if/when RCID is actually dissolved then they jumped the gun filing. That potential financial loss hasn’t happened yet. RCID is still operating business as usual. I guess we will see how it all plays out.
 

lentesta

Premium Member
The threshold for a Section 220 demand in Delaware is low.

A Section 220 demand can provide the plaintiff access to all sorts of internal communications. Potentially, they could (for example) get Chapek's emails that are related to the complaint.

Information obtained through a Section 220 demand usually is confidential but a lot of what is obtained eventually can make its way into the public domain. This could result in awkward disclosures for Disney.

Disney could fight but when it comes to Section 220 demands, Delaware courts have not been sympathetic to companies. Disney's best course probably is to try to work amiably with the plaintiff. If they handle this properly and if the plaintiff can be mollified, Disney should be able to defuse this.

Whether the plaintiff has any success suing Disney for actual damages if they are not mollified, well, that’s an entirely different matter.

I was told almost exactly this as well when it came to filing FOIA requests with Reedy Creek for similar information. And that it would cause a lot of work for lawyers to review it all for potential issues. Not to mention trying to figure out why I wanted it. It seems like it creates a lot of work for the company.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I was told almost exactly this as well when it came to filing FOIA requests with Reedy Creek for similar information. And that it would cause a lot of work for lawyers to review it all for potential issues. Not to mention trying to figure out why I wanted it. It seems like it creates a lot of work for the company.

It definitely does. While a Section 220 demand is generally far more limited than discovery in an actual lawsuit, it still requires reviewing all of the potentially responsive documents for privilege etc. which can be a very expensive process.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member

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

Back
Top Bottom