SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. said Tom Iven, its chief operating officer of about 40 days, is resigning for personal reasons, effective Thursday.
Read more from Marketwatch.
Any guesses on if the "personal reasons" were "I will not be micromanaged like this?" The revolving door is extraordinary.
At this point why doesn't the Private Equity dude just install himself as COO and as all the other C-Suite positions too.
Right? Seems like that's the only acceptable outcome to him, as he's cycled through half the industry's leadership.
Forgive me for not knowing something that is perhaps readily available information, but let's say if you're a shareholder, how do you get rid of the people at the top that keep driving these people to bail over and over again?
13 Boomerang, 9 SLC, and 8 B-TR clones
I don't know the mechanics, but I assume there's some mechanism to petition the board to replace its members. The reason Scott Ross can get his way is because Hill Path Capital owns about a third of the company's shares. Hill Path's portfolio is also 80% SeaWorld, so most of their investment is in one place (which is also a pretty stupid way to invest).
Ok.. who had "around 40" on the squares? Who has the signup sheet?
June 11th, 2001 - Gemini 100
VertiGo Rides - 82
I think it's possible to sue to have a director removed from a board for acting in bad faith or not in the interest of the company and its other shareholders. A more obvious case would be self-dealing, like arranging for a merger with another company where the director in question had an interest. I would suspect "keeps alienating senior managers of the company" is a harder thing to prove, though.
Rip Riding Rockit > being upper level management at SEAS
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
as long as SEAS is actually reporting (real) profits and improvements, it's nigh impossible to bring actions against the Directors. Now, if things turn south, then ALL of this becomes fair game for a lawsuit. At the first decline in share price, expect to see several of the sleazy "Investor Class-Action" law firms announce "investigations", etc. For them, "investigations" mean, searching for a lead plaintiff who suffers losses, so they can file a suit, but it makes for a much more inflammatory press release. In reality, they will take a hindsight is 20/20 approach to every move made by the Board, if that can buttress their case of shareholder losses.
Agree completely with Jeff's assessment about their investment strategy, however, it may also be a case of (back in the day) throwing good money after bad hoping for a turnaround. Perhaps it wasn't their initial plan, but the only way to salvage their initial investment was to Double Down, and somehow get control (which they did). Thus they can drive the bus to insure their interests. They may have had things break their way with pent-up demand, and the current Q2 results. Q3 could be different (Q3 reservations for Vegas, Anaheim are falling through the floor, and I would imagine Orlando might be following suit).
Why is the stock of this poorly run company doing so well? Their constant cutbacks have taken a lot away from the experience. It’s a shame they got their grubby hands in Busch
Because at the moment, they're more profitable than they were before the pandemic, and you can't say that about every entertainment or hospitality business. I wouldn't say that it's poorly run end to end either. There is some solid middle management in the zoological and culinary departments for sure, and that's been true for years.
You must be logged in to post