Skip to main content

Is There a Judgment Gap at The Gap?

Herb Greenberg in his “Market Blog” writes a commentary entitled “Gap Gossip” about the possibility of The Gap Inc. selling Old Navy. He writes in part:

“Gap made it clear today that changes are likely at Old Navy and its flagship Gap brands, following disappointing sales results. CEO Paul Pressler made it clear that "with the active involvement of our board" the company is reviewing brand strategies of the two.”

I decided to read the recent Proxy Statement filed by The Gap Inc. related to its Board of Directors and wrote the following response to Herb Greenberg on his blog:

Herb,

I think it’s a very good idea to get the entire Gap Board of Directors involved in this crucial decision. Maybe they should bring their spouses to the meeting too.

After all there is a saying “behind every great man there’s a great woman.” For the female directors, “behind every great woman there’s a great man.”

They would not violate company policy as read in a Proxy Statement filed on May 9, 2006:

“We occasionally invite director spouses to accompany directors to Board related events, for which we pay or reimburse travel expenses. These travel expenses are reported as compensation to the director and are grossed up to cover taxes. All directors and their immediate families are eligible to receive discounts on our merchandise in accordance with the Gap Inc. corporate employee merchandise discount policy.”

Well I guess if they sell off a division they may lose some of their discounts on merchandise. Think that will impact their decision?

Respectfully,

Sam E. Antar (Former Crazy Eddie CFO & ex-felon)

My blog question and comment here:

Do you think this Board will retain the right of employee discounts as a golden parachute? Perhaps the right of employee discounts precludes any Board member the ability from rendering independent judgment. Sounds petty? People have done stranger things for less.

Comments

Jwhite518 said…
Merchandise discounts a golden parachute? More like a tin parachute. Come on, do you really think senior management's decisions are influenced by their ability to buy a pair of jeans at 50% off?
Sam E. Antar said…
J White:

Maybe you are correct.

However as a criminal and especially as a former retailer I have seen a lot of cheap moves and silliness in my life.

Look at the perks in the proxy statement I quoted. Now the perks are legitimate.

However, "gross ups" remind me of the days at Crazy Eddie when we legitimized our previous partially "off the books" payroll by paying people fully "on the books" to make up for taxes so they could net the same pay.

In addition, the company pays for spouses to tag along on certain events. Why not pay a higher gross pay to Directors without these perks and end this pettiness and silliness?

All human beings are sinful to some extent and subject to some level of temptation. The criminal’s temptation rises to the level of what society defines as criminality. However, it is not inconceivable that any Director of The Gap may consider such petty factors such as employee discounts as part of their decision rendering process as all human beings act ultimately in their self interests.

A person may make the argument that some of the perks disclosed in the proxy statement are petty too even if they are legitimate. Therefore, if such Directors are petty in this aspect of their lives it may be possible (albeit not probable) that they can be petty concerning their employee discounts too.

Your opinion is respected.

Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had …

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that Overstock.com CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…