Bear96 said:
True enough.
But here we seem to have unanimous agreement that U has clearly overstepped all bounds of what Ch.11 should "reasonably" be. Therefore what I am trying to do is elicit from those who are saying that, like you and PITbull, either (A) an admission that you prefer U just simply liquidate since they have "abused" the system, or (B) a proposal of some realistic alternative which has the positive aspects outweigh the negative more than the current system.
Neither of which seem to be forthcoming.
[post="300993"][/post]
OK, let's take a whack.
1. BK/liquidation was not the only scenario. I seriously doubt that if management were exposed to the same risks as employees and shareholders, Bronner would have been so cavalier with the term.
2. Theoretically, a U liquidation could have had the same effect as EA's - it stopped Lorenzo in his tracks, and brought about the 1113 section of the BK code (which the new Lorenzos figured out how to sidestep).
Having seen all the solidarity at U, would liquidation have had the same results for the rest of the industry? Sadly, no.
3. An alternative - for one, some daylight between BK's. 18 months between BK's indicates the original POR was inadequate, yes?
With regards to fiduciary obligations, as you point out, the DB horse is out of the barn.
Aligning management outcomes (salaries, bonuses, benefits, etc.) with employee and current shareholder outcomes. I am aware of the theory such disincentives would make management risk-adverse, to the possible detriment of the corporation. I would balance those concerns with risks to stakeholders and taxpayers, and conclude some moderation in risk (isn't that conservative?) is worthwhile.
FWIW, I voted no to concessions and yes to strike.
