B&N Fires CEO

[fjtorres]

B&N business as usual.

Not much detail at CNBC or elsewhere:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/barn...-parneros.html

Barnes & Noble said Tuesday that it has fired CEO Demos Parneros for violating company policies.

The company did not specify exactly which policies were violated. It did say, however, that Parneros' termination "is not due to any disagreement with the Company regarding its financial reporting, policies or practices or any potential fraud relating thereto."

Parneros will not receive any severance and is no longer a director on its board, the company said in its statement.

No golden parachute for this one.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

B&N business as usual.

Not much detail at CNBC or elsewhere:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/barn...-parneros.html



No golden parachute for this one.

That is very strange indeed that he got let go without package of any kind. Sounds like nothing illegal, he did not get the offer to quit instead of getting fired, so what is left? Only thing I can think of is negligence in either wasting shareholder money or not doing something to protect the little value that is left.

Or something else entirely and he took one for the team to cover something up. Waiting for the gossip to show up in media and getting my popcorn ready.

[DuckieTigger]

Oh, there it is, in the article:

Barnes & Noble said it [..] has tapped a group of [..] chief financial officer Allen Lindstrom, chief merchandising officer Tim Mantel and vice president of stores Carl Hauch [to run the company].

Getting ready to get rid off all B&M stores. They gave up hope in salvaging anything - restructuring did not work, last straw attempt to fire the last remaining sale and inventory experts did not help (who knew?). Now it is off to the highest bidder and focus on online sales.

Wait, that might make sense, so that is probably not the idea.

[darryl]

"is not due to any disagreement with the Company regarding its financial reporting, policies or practices or any potential fraud relating thereto."

Curiously worded. Why would potential fraud even be mentioned? It doesn't seem to be an accusation against Parneros. Why mention it? Are there rumours that Parneros had detected some sort or irregularity or possible fraud which they want to try to quash? The statement seems to essentially be denying that he was sacked over a disagreement with the company regarding some of these things. Sacked? On the advice of lawyers? Publishing no compensation?

I'd say something is going to hit the fan sooner rather then later. Plenty of room for recriminations on a sinking ship. Very curious.

[astrangerhere]

My lawyer brain went immediately to wondering if this was an HR issue.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

My lawyer brain went immediately to wondering if this was an HR issue.

I thought that too, but usually, the 'aggrieved organization' makes a big deal out of something like that so as to get some positive publicity out of it at the expense of the accused. (See AMC and Chris Hardwick)

[Shad Plante]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

My lawyer brain went immediately to wondering if this was an HR issue.

Chris Meadows at Teleread thinks so as well. Some sort of sexual harassment scandal would fit the way it is worded.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

I thought that too, but usually, the 'aggrieved organization' makes a big deal out of something like that so as to get some positive publicity out of it at the expense of the accused. (See AMC and Chris Hardwick)

Exactly.
Why miss a chance at virtue signaling?

I'm thinking it might be something minor but since he didn't perform a miracle in 14 months and was going to be fired anyway they took advantage of it to avoid paying his (likely) very substantial severance package.

As Chief Executive Officer at BARNES & NOBLE INC, Demos Parneros made $2,257,143 in total compensation. Of this total $398,077 was received as a salary, $1,050,000 was received as a bonus, $0 was received in stock options, $677,954 was awarded as stock and $131,112 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2017 fiscal year

https://www1.salary.com/Demos-Parner...NOBLE-INC.html

If it turns out to be an HR issue it might be consensual and not scandalous but still a good excuse to save some money by being outraged.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Exactly.
Why miss a chance at virtue signaling?

Because its possible that there is a history of issues and someone finally threatened to blow it open. Not so virtuous when you let it go for years and then fire him.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Because its possible that there is a history of issues and someone finally threatened to blow it open. Not so virtuous when you let it go for years and then fire him.

Well, maybe, But he'd only been with the company 2 years and CEO for one year. While technically, a "Years" situation, it is a short enough tenure, that the Board of Directors could issue a plausible "shocked and dismayed" statement that included the usual politically correct, but somehow still smarmy, statement about how the company would never condone such behavior.

Please keep in mind, I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness sexual harassment, but I AM saying that the company statement does not fit the recent pattern of public behavior for such cases.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

Please keep in mind, I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness sexual harassment, but I AM saying that the company statement does not fit the recent pattern of public behavior for such cases.

Precisely.
By now there is a standard script that everybody is following and as long as the identified transgressor is quickly and unceremoniously dumped and vilified, with a goodly supply of handwringing on the side, that will be the end of the matter for the employer. Even if the organization had to be well aware of the years-long behavior and ignored or even supported the individual. (C.f., NBC/Matt Lauer.) This script is pretty much required to prevent further inquiry.

It's like the now standard politician non-apology apologies. "Mistakes were made..." or "I'm sorry if anybody was offended..."

The firing here is way too discreet to fit the needs of the moment.
Just the fact that everybody is wondering why he was dumped means B&N is still in the crosshairs and everybody is waiting for the shoe store to empty out.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by darryl

Curiously worded. Why would potential fraud even be mentioned? It doesn't seem to be an accusation against Parneros. Why mention it? Are there rumours that Parneros had detected some sort or irregularity or possible fraud which they want to try to quash? The statement seems to essentially be denying that he was sacked over a disagreement with the company regarding some of these things. Sacked? On the advice of lawyers? Publishing no compensation?

I'd say something is going to hit the fan sooner rather then later. Plenty of room for recriminations on a sinking ship. Very curious.

Maybe that is a list of causes for which some regulatory or corporate requirement call for specific disclosure.

And maybe he agreed to go without a fuss if the cause was not disclosed.

[j.p.s]

Wow. All five similar threads are about B&N CEO turnover and all five are from the past five years.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Wow. All five similar threads are about B&N CEO turnover and all five are from the past five years.

CEOs come and CEOs go but Riggio remains in charge.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

My lawyer brain went immediately to wondering if this was an HR issue.

That was my reaction as well, that he committed one of the deadly HR sins and they wanted to make sure that potential investors knew it wasn't health of the company related.