From: ahk@chinet.com
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>On 22-Aug-14 13:20, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>On 22-Aug-14 11:20, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>While the actually responsible pondscum will take their golden
>>>>>parachute and get away with it.
>>>>A golden parachute from a bankrupt company? Uh, no.
>>>Bankruptcy means the company has decided to ask a court to allow it
>>>to not pay some of its debts because it is insolvent, but that
>>>doesn't mean the company has no cash or is unable to pay _any_ of
>>>its debts. Wages (including contracted bonuses) are relatively
>>>high on the priority list of debts for bankruptcy courts, unlike
>>>pension benefits that are near the bottom of the list.
>>Again: Stephen's reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head.
>>Golden parachute payment is neither wages nor bonus nor pension.
>>Golden parachute payment is quite the opposite of a bonus. In fact,
>>the CEO gets paid to go away and go make some other company fail.
>A bonus for being fired is little different from a bonus for being
>hired. Either way, it's still a bonus, which is a subset of wages.
A hiring bonus is to compensate for work about to be performed and
because of higher personal expenses when moving to take a new job.
There is no similarity at all with a golden parachute.
>>You're going to have cite chapter and verse of Canadian bankruptcy
>>law to make the point that MM&A's top people were entitled to
>>bankruptcy protection of the golden parachute payments if you insist
>>I'm wrong.
>I'm not even sure what you're asking for here.
I want to hear that Canadian bankruptcy law treats golden parachute payments
same as wages, as you're feigning expertise. So you should be able to
cite chapter and verse from civil law of Canada.
Of course, I've never heard of any company that would negotiate such
executive compensation in case of bankruptcy, but golden parachute
provisions are generally outrageous.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
