Maybe he should go talk to Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen. Remember the whole sex addiction therapy theatre that occurred around that time?
Turd in the punch bowl, repeat we have a turd in the punch bowl.
Yes,and as the article notes, these were “private” payments or settlements, company money was not used. The issue of the settlements came up during contract negotiations. So yes, the board knew of issues but not because the company paid the settlements.
When the “Actually” just hurts too much to back away from, and doubling down becomes irresistible.
From tiggercut’s article about the payments:
So, your executive makes a payment/settlement due to accusations of sexual harassment, and you don’t think the company has a duty to investigate? The fact that the complaint was dropped was due to the settlement. That doesn’t mean that the event did not occur and an executive disciplined/dismissed. And company worth its salt with proper sexual harassment policies and protocols is going to investigate and make a determination as to whether it ocurred and if punishment needs to be handed out. This is really inexcusable, especially coming from the company’s lawyer.
Look, @jew_killer1488 is fine.
Look, Twitter doesn’t enable Nazis to spread their ideology unhindered. I’m sure there is a perfectly logical reason why he chose the name jewkiller, and appended the numbers 14 and 88 on it. Totally nothing to do with genocide, and this is totally acceptable for a platform to allow in the name of freeze peach.
I love how both tribes hate social media and think the companies are working against them. Hehe.
I’ve never really heard the complaint from the far-right other than when someone gets kicked off, which is rare as fuck.
Most of them spend all day threatening people knowing nothing will happen to them.
You need to spend more time hanging out in the corners of reddit where they believe the owners of it are part of pizzagate. On the other hand, maybe you better not.
Yeah, I’ll take a pass on that one.
Neither company (Miramax or Weinstein) would have had to pay the settlements to know about them. Part of being a guy whose name is on the company means having your financials poured over with a fine-tooth comb by the company’s internal or external accounting experts. The absolute last thing a major company, especially one involved in financing multi-million dollar projects, wants is for it’s CEO/President/Guy-With-Name-On-Letterhead to turn out to be insolvent, have massive unexplained personal income or losses or be financing the local chapter of Aryan Nation or something equally horrific on the side that could come out to embarrass the brand or ruin the company.
Maybe it slid by at Miramax because it was earlier on, but Weinstein Company had to have the financial information showing multiple settlement payouts and it wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure out what they were for given that his own brother was his partner in the business. They knew, they covered, and they didn’t give a shit that he kept doing it, as long as the blockbusters and awards (meaning the money) kept coming.
Not knowing the amounts or how many they paid out maybe it was just considered a cost of doing business and cheaper to pay out than to pay the legal fees. Police Departments do that all the time when it comes to lawsuits brought by people they have dealt with.
What are you basing this upon? Are you speaking from personal or professional experience? I’m a CPA and was involved in audits of closely held companies years ago (I since moved to the corporate out of public accounting world). At no point did we ever do reviews of the financial affairs of the any of the owners for the sake of the company. We did the taxes of the executives/owners but we could not report anything there back to the company due to confidentiality if something was found of a dubious nature. Unless things have changed, and I am not aware of any such changes, this is not required by audit rules nor by any laws or regulations that I am aware of. Basically what you are saying is that the accountants should go through the checkbook of every executive with an ownership interest and look at every single item. I can’t see any executive allowing that level of invasion of privacy from his/her pov. As noted in the articles above, Weinstein was asked about any issues in contract negotiations but that’s a far cry from undergoing the type of investigative audit you are talking about.
If you can give me evidence that this is the new norm, I’ll admit things have changed. Otherwise, I think this is an erroneous assertion. but maybe things have changed.
I read that Rose McGowan posted a picture of a movie exec’s email that included personal information (a phone number) which led to the TOS violation. Bad optics fer sure, but we all know she can’t do that. Just blur or frame-out the phone number and let the text of the email be the story as she intended instead of this distraction.
I will defer to your experience as a CPA, but the company I work for creates and dissolves partnerships all the time and it seems fairly common for part of that process to be a financial audit of the principles involved to insure people aren’t partnering with or buying a company from someone with something to hide financially. It’s probably a partnership thing versus a corporation thing…I’m not sure which one Weinstein’s company is.
Regardless, it still doesn’t account for HR sitting on what had to be more than one complaint if this had been going on for years.
If true, that explains perfectly the temp ban and unban. Time to correct that and verification of same.
Yes, it’s probably a partnership thing. In partnership you are all liable together for anything/everything related to the business so you have to have more scrutiny of your partners - I think it’s called “joint and several” liability if I remember correctly. In a corporation, you have no personal liability, you can only lose your investment in the corporation. From what I’ve read Weinsten is a corporation. That probably explains it.
I believe it’s “Joint and Severable” which essentially means all can be found culpable (joint), or they each can each be found liable separate from each other (severable). You can thabkk a contract law class 20 years ago for the accuracy or inaccuracy of that statement.
Joint and several – multiple parties are involved, all are wholly responsible. Pretty common arrangement in leasing (especially to reckless college kids).