re broadening the subject, ok. I thought you were responding to Dramedy's Lehman-specific post.
re "if fraud was not technically involved," that's a mighty big if. Understand, I would not shed a tear if you could reveal fraud but I think what those investors were kvetching about had to do with Rudin's choices in how to spend money, something that is certainly contemplated by the parameters of the offering. Even within that context, I think Rudin was actually nowhere near the cutting edge of (still not fraudulent) self-dealing that some others are known for.
re "silly," the first thing that comes to mind is the aforementioned ridiculous ad buys that could not possibly be justified financially (and, as we now know know, he did not always pay for as required). There were others, like misjudging value, and closing shows that could have continued to run profitably. (And I'll leave to the side the nonsense like suing the Lee estate to satiate some personal power trip.)
Anyway, all of this is well and good but I think most folks on this thread were trying to stay on point. Oh, and I may or may not be smart, but I am far from the only person who called him silly!
Once again, I implore: clear-eyed analysis=good. :-) |
