Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Dưới đây là một số công ty giúp các thành viên gia đình của các sĩ quan cao cấp và Giám đốc.Bemis Công ty TNHH công ty thuộc sở hữu của hai người thân của giám đốc điều hành đã bán được hơn $ 8.000.000 trong các sản phẩm Bemis. | All in the Family EXHIBIT 6.1 Family-Friendly Companies Here is how some companies help family members of senior officers and directors. Bemis Co. Companies owned by two relatives of the CEO each sold more than 8 million in products to Bemis. Carnival Corp. Disclosed that the brother of its chief operating officer had been hired by Waste Management to negotiate a contract with Carnival which generated 1.3 million for Waste Management in 2001. Costco Wholesale Corp. Employed two sons and the brother-in-law of the CEO two brother-in-laws and a son of another senior executive and several family members of two different directors. HCA Inc. Formed MedCap Properties and appointed son-in-law of former CEO as chief manager. In 2000 MedCap purchased for 250 million 116 medical office buildings from HCA. Medcap also received 7.9 million in lease payments from HCA. Source Beth Young My Brother-in-Law s Wife and Other Related Parties The Corporate Library November 2002. After describing related party transactions in their proxies and 10-Ks companies routinely include a line that reads Management believes that the terms of the transaction are similar to terms that would be negotiated with an unrelated party. Even Enron said this at the end of its infamous Footnote 16 in 1999.2 For text of the footnote see Exhibit 2.1. 89 Financial Fine Print Companies routinely describe their related party transactions as arm s-length transactions that are similar to nonrelated party deals. But that doesn t mean that investors should take the companies at their word. Be particularly wary if a public company discloses significant business with a nonpublic related party. In its rules FASB advises investors to think carefully about related party deals Transactions involving related parties cannot be presumed to be carried out on an arm s length basis. Representations about transactions with related parties if made shall not imply that the related party transactions were consummated on terms .
