Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Try Wearing an Ascot | Give 'em the Boot! »

Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Some Local Morning News: McGavick Sued Over $28 Million Golden Parachute

Posted by on August 2 at 9:30 AM

Emma Schwartzman, a great great granddaughter of a SAFECO founder, has filed a suit against GOP U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick claiming that his $28 million stock option and severance package “resulted from a fraudulent transaction between McGavick and the Board of Directors; breached defendants’ fiduciary duties to shareholders and constituted corporate waste; and violated federal securities laws by concealing the magnitude and extraordinary nature of the payout.”

(The Democrats have also denounced the deal, and have a complaint pending with the FEC arguing that the $28 million constitutes an illegal campaign contribution.)

McGavick says the lawsuit is politically motivated.

While McGavick’s rejoinder isn’t far fetched— Schwartzman’s attorney, Knoll Lowney, is well-known in environmental and lefty circles (he successfully challenged Tim Eyman’s property-tax measure I-747, and represented the Thornton Creek activists in Northgate)—McGavick’s line isn’t much of a defense. Poltically motivated or not, the issue remains: McGavick walked away from SAFECO with $28 million that he wasn’t originally entitled to. And a lot of people have legitimate questions about the deal. For instance, maybe the handsome severance package itself was politically motivated. Again, the Democrats argue that the money is an illegal campaign contribution.

Schwatrzman’s lawsuit may get to the bottom of it.


CommentsRSS icon

I say good on her... more and more of these shareholder lawsuits should expose these golden parachutes for what they are-- payoffs due to the cozyness between boards and senior management. I wonder what Gary Locke has to say...

quote:

"expose these golden parachutes for what they are-- payoffs"

or in this case a shady backdoor campaign donation.

Of course it's politically motivated. That doesn't mean he isn't guilty of malfeasance. Just because a lawsuit has less than pure motives for its filing doesn't mean the suit itself isn't based in fact. McGavick is a typical corporate crook.

Did they backdate the options illegally as well?

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).