Eliot Spitzer’s long-running propaganda campaign and lawsuit against former New York Stock Exchange chairman and CEO Richard Grasso has been a frequent topic on this blog, so I couldn’t help but notice this NY Post article (hat tip to Peter Lattman) in which Grasso is derided for defending his lucrative pay package during a recent television interview. I mean, why should anyone make that much money, right?
Meanwhile, for a much more lucid analysis of the true issues should be in the Grasso lawsuit, check out this Larry Ribstein post:
[T]he main thing to keep in mind is that [Grasso’s] pay was approved by a highly sophisticated board. The only issue should be whether that board was informed. This is the way it should and would be in a standard fiduciary duty case (e.g, Disney). There is significant reason to believe it was, . . .
Alas, this isn’t the end of the matter because the NYSE was a non-profit that comes under Eliot Spitzer’s tender care. Grasso’s trial has been broken into two parts, so that the trial judge first rules on reasonableness separate from board process. In the first part, . . . Spitzer will try to prove “that the pay judgments of executives who worked in the highest echelons of the business community were not ‘reasonable.'” In other words, a NY trial judge may end up substituting his judgment for that of a board that included the likes of the Treasury Secretary and former head of Goldman Sachs.

