GOING AFTER GRASSO’s MONEY - III
Court, Consent, or Common Cause?
It may be well nigh unlikely looking to their declared positions that Mr. Eliot Spitzer and Mr. Richard Grasso can be mutually consenting to compromising their interests to end their lawsuits. However, in the earlier two parts of this article on Grasso’s money, it was pointed out how consent is preferred to court action in the matter. But to consent there is to be a common cause.
Ordinarily, it is fear of losing a lawsuit that makes opposite parties to compromise, rather than run risk to battle in court. Such force to foreclose court action may not be there in the minds of the New York State’s Attorney General and the former chairman and chief executive of the New York Stock Exchange to impel them to end their legal wrangle.
But in Spitzer-Grasso hassle there fortunately obtains a common cause to resolve it. What is appealing is that it runs further to their contentious claims and beyond to the greater interest of the market. Let alone the two to the issue, a lot others, well-spirited ones, may favor it.
Those in the background, like the NYSE’s present chief, Mr. John Reed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s chairman, Mr. William Donaldson, may be drawn to it. At the same time, the NYSE, which also is made a party by Spitzer in his lawsuit, can immensely benefit by it.
The court itself may see it as a reasonable way to close the lawsuits.
The way out in the Spitzer-Grasso spar is not magical as it may sound. It is apparent in the squabble between the two itself. Because of conceit or convenience it has been lost in sight. It is brought in focus in this third and concluding part of the Grasso money article.
The option to resolve this controversial matter lies in letting Grasso keep his money but on the condition that he puts it back in NYSE. This may seem presumptuous, even paradoxical. But it is possible to be a reality.
At the height of controversy over Grasso’s money, it was made out that this had snowballed simply because of the clubbing together of the exchange’s two disparate functions, marketplace and regulation, into one single authority of the NYSE’s Board and the chairman and CEO. Governance become the catch word by then, it was further said that due to this one combined authority NYSE’s corporate governance was in disarray while the chairman-cum-CEO lorded as supreme.
To lend diligence to the board of directors, therefore, it was argued the NYSE should go public, like a listed company, and the positions of chairman and CEO should be separated. The exchange’s two separate functions could then vest in the two different authorities: regulation in the board and chairman, and market activity in the CEO reporting to the board of directors.
Nothing came of this, once Grasso left. But with Grasso still shadowing NYSE, the idea can be renewed. Left to his money, Grasso can be made to put it back to NYSE. He can be asked to subscribe to NYSE’s public offering, if not all of his money, a good part of it. It may be to Grasso’s heart to do this. It may also appeal to him, as investment in NYSE shares over time can be earning for him more than 8 per cent his accumulated dues did.
Fuming over Grasso’s money will cause unnecessary ruptures. Funneling it into NYSE can further interests of all. To this end Grasso can even be called back to head NYSE as the CEO. Nobody can deny as chairman and CEO Grasso led NYSE ably. Even Spitzer concedes as in his lawsuit he says, “Dick Grasso was a superb CEO”.
Grasso tells how superb he was in these words: “Under my leadership the NYSE earned over $900 million during my eight years as chairman and was sitting on over $800 million in cash and other liquid assets.”
Grasso can be depended to lend NYSE greater strength in its incarnation as a public corporation.
To conclude, therefore, there is a way out, a very honorable way to say, to deal in Grasso’s money. That is, if there is a will to make it a deal. It can be a delectable deal putting behind unlimited rancor that court action is bound to unleash.
Let the standing of NYSE rule the minds of all. Over the 211 years of existence NYSE has grown to be the world’s greatest stock exchange. It has grown out from a corporation into an institution. All owe it that it is not sullied in lawsuits but stands tall and towers as an institution.
It may be well nigh unlikely looking to their declared positions that Mr. Eliot Spitzer and Mr. Richard Grasso can be mutually consenting to compromising their interests to end their lawsuits. However, in the earlier two parts of this article on Grasso’s money, it was pointed out how consent is preferred to court action in the matter. But to consent there is to be a common cause.
Ordinarily, it is fear of losing a lawsuit that makes opposite parties to compromise, rather than run risk to battle in court. Such force to foreclose court action may not be there in the minds of the New York State’s Attorney General and the former chairman and chief executive of the New York Stock Exchange to impel them to end their legal wrangle.
But in Spitzer-Grasso hassle there fortunately obtains a common cause to resolve it. What is appealing is that it runs further to their contentious claims and beyond to the greater interest of the market. Let alone the two to the issue, a lot others, well-spirited ones, may favor it.
Those in the background, like the NYSE’s present chief, Mr. John Reed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s chairman, Mr. William Donaldson, may be drawn to it. At the same time, the NYSE, which also is made a party by Spitzer in his lawsuit, can immensely benefit by it.
The court itself may see it as a reasonable way to close the lawsuits.
The way out in the Spitzer-Grasso spar is not magical as it may sound. It is apparent in the squabble between the two itself. Because of conceit or convenience it has been lost in sight. It is brought in focus in this third and concluding part of the Grasso money article.
The option to resolve this controversial matter lies in letting Grasso keep his money but on the condition that he puts it back in NYSE. This may seem presumptuous, even paradoxical. But it is possible to be a reality.
At the height of controversy over Grasso’s money, it was made out that this had snowballed simply because of the clubbing together of the exchange’s two disparate functions, marketplace and regulation, into one single authority of the NYSE’s Board and the chairman and CEO. Governance become the catch word by then, it was further said that due to this one combined authority NYSE’s corporate governance was in disarray while the chairman-cum-CEO lorded as supreme.
To lend diligence to the board of directors, therefore, it was argued the NYSE should go public, like a listed company, and the positions of chairman and CEO should be separated. The exchange’s two separate functions could then vest in the two different authorities: regulation in the board and chairman, and market activity in the CEO reporting to the board of directors.
Nothing came of this, once Grasso left. But with Grasso still shadowing NYSE, the idea can be renewed. Left to his money, Grasso can be made to put it back to NYSE. He can be asked to subscribe to NYSE’s public offering, if not all of his money, a good part of it. It may be to Grasso’s heart to do this. It may also appeal to him, as investment in NYSE shares over time can be earning for him more than 8 per cent his accumulated dues did.
Fuming over Grasso’s money will cause unnecessary ruptures. Funneling it into NYSE can further interests of all. To this end Grasso can even be called back to head NYSE as the CEO. Nobody can deny as chairman and CEO Grasso led NYSE ably. Even Spitzer concedes as in his lawsuit he says, “Dick Grasso was a superb CEO”.
Grasso tells how superb he was in these words: “Under my leadership the NYSE earned over $900 million during my eight years as chairman and was sitting on over $800 million in cash and other liquid assets.”
Grasso can be depended to lend NYSE greater strength in its incarnation as a public corporation.
To conclude, therefore, there is a way out, a very honorable way to say, to deal in Grasso’s money. That is, if there is a will to make it a deal. It can be a delectable deal putting behind unlimited rancor that court action is bound to unleash.
Let the standing of NYSE rule the minds of all. Over the 211 years of existence NYSE has grown to be the world’s greatest stock exchange. It has grown out from a corporation into an institution. All owe it that it is not sullied in lawsuits but stands tall and towers as an institution.
<< Home