[dahart]

Where on earth did you get that idea? Corps aren’t always (or even usually) liable for subcorps, and subcorps are never liable for the actions of parent corps. The whole reason there are two separate legal entities is to establish separate liabilities & finances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary

[b112]

Yes, using the term liable was a mistake. I meant "responsible".

I also should have put my last sentence in its own paragraph.

I stand by this, and consider...

You are a CFO of a subsidiary. You have certain legal requirements. Only certain people may speak for your org, be it CxO level, or the board.

If you discover a board member speaking as if it has CxO level authority, or worse, some non-board, or CxO actor running around, claiming to represent your company on financial matters, you must seek and act on that malfeasance. You cannot simply allow someone, with your knowledge, to speak for your corp, without approval.

The board / directors appoint top execs, giving them executive power. No one else may claim it.

So, someone running around, negotiating salary deals, speaking for a subcorp? Very shady, hard to believe it would not get back to the board or that the board or executive branch did not know.

[dahart]

What value are you hoping to contribute to this discussion? You are speaking in generalities and platitudes and making so many assumptions it’s hard to respond. Your description of the corporate subsidiary relationship is still incorrect.

This isn’t logic, it’s history. If you’re interested in commenting on it, why not read something about the actual lawsuit? In this case, specific people were caught making certain agreements that are against the law. The executives did know, because they were the ones making the agreement, and they were caught. People directly involved included Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple) and Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google).

[b112]

You are trying to assert the studios were good studios. Yet, you provide no proof that the board, and CxO ezecs were completely unaware of (as you claim) parent corps making back room deals.

Look, many people in this thread have expressed that you seem to be over protective of these studios you worked for. I get that you did not feel ill treated when there, but you were ... clearly your salary was artificially, and illegally depressed.

You just don't have a leg to stand on here, IMO.

I'm not sure why you seem so put out by this. You aren't your employer, and being a victim doesn't paint you in a bad light.

edit: If I am missing something here, please lay out what it is.

But do note that by the mere fact your salary was repressed, you worked for a bad corp. I will find it very, very difficult to get past this point, and all the hand waving in the world will likely not help here.

It may be that there is no value in us discussing, our positions may be too entrenched.

[dahart]

Hahaha this is cracking me up. Seriously. Wow. You are missing literally everything. The reason there’s no value in discussing this is that you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do and are now attacking me. You made it crystal clear you don’t understand corporate subsidiaries. You have no idea what studio I’m referring to or what it’s relationship to the parent corp was, or more importantly what it’s relationship to the named defendants in the suit was, and you don’t seem to care about these details or any actual facts at all. You could have asked nicely, but instead you’re doubling down on incorrect assumptions and trying to insult me. Why should I provide more facts to you when you’re willfully ignoring all the facts I’ve given so far? What is really bothering you? I get the feeling it has nothing to do with boards or execs or subsidiaries.

You aren’t entitled to any proof of anything here, and you’ve misunderstood and misrepresented at least some of what I wrote above. I shared my experience and feeling about Cartoon Brew’s articles versus my perspective of what happened as a member of the class. What is your experience in the matter? Were you involved? I hope you keep your healthy skepticism turned on while you read their articles. My position is based on personal experience in the matter, your stated position so far based on pure speculation. You don’t know what my salary was, nor whether it was repressed. Saying you’re entrenched only proves to me you’ve jumped to a conclusion and aren’t interested in the truth. I’m really curious why you’re still responding, but I could not care less what your bystander opinion is, unless you have something relevant to say that is based on reality.