The debate about Pay-for-Performance (only for a select few at the top of the company pyramid) rages on. To justify high pay for good performance as a management tool is based on questionable logic. Naturally those benefiting from the resulting excesses that result are finding reasons to defend this relatively recent ideology. But what about the CEO who struggles heroically in a business that is beset with problems that are out of its control, does an excellent job but has to live with results - while much better than they could have been if he would have made wrong decisions - that do not reach the performance yardsticks that some well-paid 'compensation consultant' has sold to a company board or compensation committee?
(2-October-2016)
On October 1, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a
Caremark claim in In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation.
Under In re ...
3 hours ago
0 comments:
Post a Comment