Anderson v. Yahoo Inc., 5:16-cv-00527, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). Reads like a John Grisham novel about a fifth grade class project.
Maybe Zimmel was trying to tell the board they weren't doing their job and the board decided that getting rid of him was far easier than dealing with the real problem.
Retention Contracts to ensure that a buyer will have the top staff well beyond the acquisition. Quite normal and necessary for a sale.
pert_3 Are you kidding about the time, look at the last four years of Apollo and Avon. Both CEO's are still there and their stock has gone from the twenties to $7 and $3. And one of them is paid $25 million
30% is between $80 and $160 million, they need to drop at least $1.5 to $1.8 billion. If they focused on making the work go away first, that small amount of managers wouldn't be noticed. If however they are focusing on people rather than work, there will be long lasting employee morale issues. Telling management to ax 5% of their staff is always a disaster waiting for a date. Who in their right mind would assume every business unit produces the same value, of course they don't, so how can you reward the low value units by allowing them to keep 95% while penalizing the high vale units with a 5% reduction. The focus should be on the work, if the work goes away then certainly layoffs will follow, but at least the selection process will make sense to the employees.