#governance

Houston, TX - Thursday, September 24, 2026
In a brief but consequential status conference Thursday morning, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge signaled that upcoming hearings in the DISH DBS and DISH Wireless Chapter 11 cases may carry significant repercussions for EchoStar Corporation, the parent entity at the center of governance and independence disputes.

The hearing, held ahead of the September 29 confirmation proceeding for the DBS Debtors' prepackaged plan, quickly shifted toward the growing conflict surrounding the Special Committee Report in the DISH Wireless (DWLLC) case. The report, commissioned to evaluate DWLLC's independence and EchoStar's influence, has become a flashpoint between EchoStar and the Unsecured Creditors' Committee (UCC).

Counsel to the UCC, told the court that EchoStar had delivered its proposed redactions to the Special Committee Report just before the hearing. The counsel emphasized that the Independent Special Committee supports the UCC's emergency motion, which argues that EchoStar's conduct has created an urgent need for disclosure. In that emergency motion, the UCC warned that "EchoStar's actions have impeded the Special Committee's ability to operate independently" and that "the estate cannot be protected unless the Report is promptly filed without improper redactions." The counsel reiterated in Thursday's hearing that urgency from the emergency motion, stating that "if we are not able to work through the redactions and get the report on file in the coming days, we will be seeking the court's intervention."

The Judge responded, "I appreciate it." He then cautiously but pointedly emphasized that he intends to honor the existing standstill until the next major hearing on October 2, when the Special Committee Report and related governance issues will be addressed. The Judge added that the October 2 session is likely to be substantially more involved than Thursday's brief update.

"I suspect that that may be a more robust discussion," the Judge said, referencing the October 2 hearing. The Judge continued that the hearing would give him a clearer picture if they were still going to go forward with the emergency hearing on the 8th and as the Judge put it "what the consequences are, of how I may rule and where things stand in that case.”

The judge's reference to "consequences" was interpreted as a signal that findings related to DWLLC's independence, EchoStar's conduct, or the adequacy of redactions of the Special Committee Report could directly influence the separate October 8 hearing, where the UCC seeks standing to pursue claims against EchoStar and authority to conduct Rule 2004 discovery.

Meanwhile, the DBS Debtors reported progress in resolving objections to their confirmation plan, though multiple broadcaster cure disputes remain active on the docket. The Judge instructed the Dish DBS Debtors to file witness and exhibit lists by September 25, and to provide a full status update by September 28, noting that he intends to prepare over the weekend for the September 29 DBS confirmation hearing.

The court also noted that it remains prepared to rule on Comcast's pending motion to intervene, which seeks to participate in DWLLC’s force‑majeure litigation and argues that DISH Wireless is attempting to develop a factual record that could bind other creditors without their involvement.

With broadcaster objections mounting, the Special Committee Report pending, and two high‑stakes hearings scheduled within the next two weeks, the DISH bankruptcy cases appear poised for a decisive turn.

HOUSTON - Sept. 13 - The DISH Wireless Debtors issued a Sunday evening statement filing that their restructuring could collapse into liquidation if creditors do not support the amended Wireless plan, even as a newly announced two‑week litigation pause drew immediate scrutiny due to creditor pushback. Sections 7 of the Debtors’ Statement acknowledge that failure to reach consensus may result in consideration of other alternatives including conversion to chapter 7.

The filing framed the requested pause in litigation as collaborative, but it contradicts the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee’s earlier filing accusing the Debtors of previously imposing a “one‑way pause of discovery” and refusing to produce key Rule 2004 documents.

The contradiction is expected to be a focal point at Monday’s status conference, ahead of a critical requested September 23 answer on governance failures and conflict‑of‑interest allegations involving White & Case.

HOUSTON, Sept. 13 - The DISH Wireless Debtors dropped a sweeping amended plan on Saturday, carving their case away from the DBS Debtors and adding new governance controls as they brace for a high‑stakes courtroom clash over counsel conflicts.

The Saturday filing is a full redline of the Amended DISH Wireless Plan and Disclosure Statement. The new filing by White & Case, the lead counsel for the debtors, formally bifurcates the estates and hands insider‑related litigation authority to a newly created Special Governance Committee, a move aimed at defusing objections from the U.S. Trustee and unsecured creditors.

The revisions tighten FCC Trust rules, introduce new claim‑treatment exhibits, and clarify that DWLLC’s intercompany loan claim cannot tap FCC Trust recoveries. The changes however stop short of addressing the U.S. Trustee’s central allegation: that White & Case helped structure the disputed intercompany loan and failed to disclose its role.

The timing of a Saturday drop also follows a wave of Friday Ordinary Course Professional Declaration (OCP) declarations and is expected to draw scrutiny at Monday’s hearing. Creditors may challenge the last‑minute filings show the Debtors scrambling to contain governance fallout and avoid removal of restructuring counsel.

Judge Christopher Lopez will need to decide whether parties need more time to review the redlines or proceed directly to argument. A separate Sept. 23 hearing will determine whether DWLLC can remain a debtor‑in‑possession or whether a trustee is needed to take control of the Wireless estate.

The amended plan marks the most aggressive restructuring shift since the merits‑track split, but it remains unclear whether the changes will satisfy the US Trustee's concerns regarding lead council and the creditor's pressing for independent oversight.

Houston, Sept. 11, 2026 — The U.S. Trustee for Region 7 filed a formal objection Friday to the DISH Wireless Debtors’ application to retain White & Case LLP as restructuring counsel, citing conflicts of interest tied to prepetition insider transactions.

In the filing, the Trustee argued that White & Case “holds and represents interests adverse to the estate,” pointing to disclosures showing the firm drafted and advised on the DWLLC Intercompany Loan now under scrutiny by the Debtors’ Special Committee and challenged by multiple creditor groups.

The US Trustee’s objection includes a proposed order denying retention, signaling a request for immediate court action ahead of a September 14 status conference. The objection comes as the Debtors face heightened scrutiny over governance stability following the departure of two Chief Legal Officers and the appointment of an acting CLO.

Within hours of the filing, the Debtors submitted a series of Ordinary Course Professional declarations and supplemental notices, updating their roster of routine legal and advisory firms.

Judge Christopher Lopez is expected to address the W&C retention objection at Monday’s hearing. A separate hearing on the appointment of a trustee motion is scheduled for September 23 and will be a critical test of whether DISH Wireless can continue as a debtor‑in‑possession.

In a new emergency filing submitted on September 6, 2026 (Docket No. 1361) in the DISH Wireless bankruptcy, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors alleges that EchoStar insiders created a $19.9 billion “intercompany loan” and used it to justify transferring Boost Mobile out of the DISH Wireless estate, a move the filing describes as benefiting non‑debtor affiliates at the expense of Wireless creditors.

The motion to appoint an independent trustee or strip case exclusivity represents the highest-stakes maneuver yet to wrest control from EchoStar insiders. The Committee is asking the judge to appoint an independent Chapter 11 trustee or terminate DISH Wireless’s exclusive control of the case, citing conflicts of interest, undisclosed FCC actions, and looming administrative insolvency. Based on the filing’s evidence, the motion is asking for either trustee appointment or loss of exclusivity, both of which could trigger an investigation into the Boost transfer and shift control away from EchoStar. If the judge grants either of the UCC's demands, EchoStar will lose control over the restructuring timeline.
Sources:
– Emergency Motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (Docket No. 1361, filed 9/6/26)
– Committee Response to Debtors’ Statement (Docket No. 1362, filed 9/6/26)

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/telstra-s-only-two-timing-experts-had-been-sent-home-to-rest-before-network-fell-over-20260902-p60tmw.html

The only two Telstra engineers with deep expertise in the system that failed in July were on a mandatory break when the national mobile outage they had unwittingly triggered took hold, an external investigation has found.

The outage cut hundreds of people off from Triple Zero, halted trains in Victoria and NSW, and brought down eftpos systems across the country. It has triggered a Senate inquiry and an investigation by the communications regulator that could result in Telstra being fined up to $30 million.

The pair had replaced a faulty power supply in a timing chassis in Melbourne in the early hours of July 8. When it came back online at 2.50am, a GPS card inside reset and began telling the mobile network the date was 2006. The card was missing a firmware update for a predictable fault the supplier had already flagged in bulletins, confirming this masthead’s (the Age), July reporting.

The report by Technology Audit Partners found alarms on the timing servers were checked only during business hours by a small number of staff and did not appear in the monitoring tools used by round-the-clock support teams. When errors began to occur, nobody on duty could find records of the servers, the work done that night or the people to call.

Chief executive Vicki Brady said the company accepted every finding.
....
Brady also revealed Telstra had missed eight failed Triple Zero calls during the outage and never carried out the welfare checks required to find out whether the people who made them were safe. She blamed a manual processing fault and a monitoring fault.
....
“It shouldn’t have happened. We should have picked those eight up,” Brady said. “We know how important Triple Zero is.”
....
The telecommunications company also revised the start of the outage to 2.50am on July 8, almost 50 minutes earlier than it had said. The previous time reflected when a maintenance ticket was closed rather than when the fault began.

Brady said the failure was “not due to infrastructure failing” but to an undocumented design change made in October last year and a software update that was never applied to a GPS card.
....
“It’s not about not enough resources. It’s not about not enough money,” she said. “It’s about the prioritisation.”
....
The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network said the report showed a governance failure rather than a technical fault beyond Telstra’s control, and renewed its call for enforceable reliability standards.

“We rely on telcos to ensure that their networks are managed with the seriousness commensurate with public safety,” chief executive Carol Bennett said. “This report shows that didn’t happen. Not because the problem was unforeseeable – in fact it was very much foreseen – but Telstra didn’t treat it as a priority until it caused a national outage.”
....
More than 30,000 customers have contacted Telstra for compensation, and it has paid just under $1 million in credits, an average of about $15 for consumers. Brady urged anyone still out of pocket to come forward.

“Modern networks are complex but complexity is not an excuse,” she said.

The leadership that has been running the company to the ground for several years has decided the failures aren’t due to their own choices — not the years spent pulling engineers away from innovation to chase a commodity PC chip, not the fixation on edge AI while the entire industry moved toward datacenter AI, and not the pattern of entering mature markets long after everyone else.

They never prioritize, never take responsibility, and always look for someone beneath them to blame.

Now they’ve concluded that the real problem is the workforce. Their “solution” is to push out hardworking people and replace them with new hires from the industry, buying themselves another 3–4 years of insulation while nothing fundamentally changes. Because the core issue is them.

And this is the only company where one individual simultaneously controls the financial decisions, the operational direction, the business strategy, and the sales pipeline — all concentrated in a single seat, right next to the CEO. There is no separation of responsibility, no checks and balances, no accountability. When one person holds every lever, failure has nowhere to go but downward.

By 2029, when shareholders start asking why the promises remain unfulfilled, they’ll either quietly exit or invent another cycle of excuses.

Meanwhile, countless careers and families will be disrupted — while the same leadership circle continues to thrive, untouched by the consequences they created.

If you have a voting right in annual members meeting, cast your vote by Aug. 19, 2026, 1:00 p.m. Central Time.
Crying about it doesn’t solve anything. Vote or keep crying.

RV gets a seat on the OpenAI board. Now a McKinsey exec gets a board seat at BNY. What’s next in this game of thrones?

Jana Partners sent a letter to Fiserv Board of Directors stating in short that they're not comfortable with insufficient changes to remediate governance issues and want further "board change".

Jana supports the same of our debit network and also calls for comprehensive review of the entire asset portfolio.

Every time I try to create a post, this captcha expires. Guess what I have to say is too long-winded. Here, let me reach out to copilot to assist with condensing the pertinent pieces of information:

The LACK of financial accountability and the LACK of governance has been around for at LEAST the last 6 years. If only you knew how many millions of the taxpayer dollar has been WASTED on applications, contractors, unnecessary airfare and travel, and failed ENTERPRISE LEVEL projects led by directors with no institutional knowledge (i.e, OMG, what’s the difference between a 1500 and UB-04?). Now, all of a sudden you wanna be good stewards of taxpayer dollars? Well, you know what they say: You only miss the water when the well runs dry. I won’t elaborate because clearly, spirit is protecting me from saying too much, but if only you can take a walk in my shoes……. You might understand. Get to know God. This is just the beginning. And no I’m not JUST talking about this job. It, ALL OF IT is going to get worse. And no, I’m not the Bible thumper who was being bullied earlier. 😂😂

Congratulations to everyone on successfully participating in the CEO selection process by existing under it.

This is your friendly reminder that we'll all spend more waking hours under our CEO than under most elected officials, yet one is chosen by millions and the other by a handful of board members.

‘On May 26, 2026, Synopsys entered into a cooperation agreement with activist investor Elliott Investment Management that includes appointing Elliott managing partner Jesse Cohn as an independent director, effective June 1, 2026, expanding the board to 11 members.’

The vultures have arrived, surely things will get better now.

From the Economist today….

Since 2020 as many people have run bp as have run Britain. Sir Keir Starmer, the
fourth prime minister in as many years, promised to end the pantomime in
Westminster. Last year Albert Manifold was appointed as chairman of bp to do the
same thing in nearby St James’s Square. Sir Keir is still hanging on. Mr Manifold is
finished. On May 26th, after less than eight months in post, Mr Manifold was sacked in
a unanimous vote by the board, which includes Meg O’Neill, the oil company’s new
chief executive.
Mr Manifold inherited a neglected giant. The net-zero strategy of his predecessor
Helge Lund, a Norwegian, had made bp uninvestable. It is fitting, then, that Mr
Manifold’s dismissal should have the air of a Eurocratic initiative. The timing of the
directive announcing his departure could not have been better chosen to agitate
markets. It travelled down the wires just as traders in New York returned to their desks
after a bank-holiday weekend and were busy digesting news about a possible end to
America’s war in Iran. Shares in bp fell by nearly 10%.
But the real sin was the statement’s style. It was written in the worst literary tradition
of arrogant, managerial minimalism. Rather than elaborate on the reasons why bp must
now search for another chairman, the board o!ered just a few lines of cryptic lanyard-
speak. There are “serious concerns” about “important governance standards, oversight
and conduct”, the statement said. Trust us, he’s a wrong’un, pleaded a board which
shareholders have little reason to trust. Like Sir Keir, bp’s board appeals confidently to
an authority that has been spent twice over.
Thus began a guessing game: what did Mr Manifold do that was seemingly awful
enough to jeopardise bp’s turnaround? Plotting a coup in some faraway resource-rich
land? Not likely. Trying to sink Ed Miliband, Britain’s fanatical minister for net zero, in
the North Sea? If only. Predictably, initial speculation turned to sleaze. In its recent
history two bp chief executives have left their posts in bizarre circumstances related to
their private lives.
That wasn’t it, either. Instead, Mr Manifold was apparently exiled from clubland for
being a bad chap. The Financial Times reported allegations that he had been viewed by
some at bp as aggressive and that the board had received complaints from whistle-
blowers. Some reportedly called him a bully. On May 28th Mr Manifold responded. Yes,
he may have pushed people to accelerate cost-cutting and strengthen the balance-
sheet. But “at no point”, he wrote, “has anyone raised with me any issue about my
conduct...I dispute entirely this characterisation of my conduct.”
If Mr Manifold was truly intolerable, the board must explain to shareholders in more
detail. If he was merely disagreeable, that is probably proof of a job well done. As a
supposed City grandee herself, Dame Amanda Blanc, the bp director who led the
process to appoint Mr Manifold, would surely have known his City-wide reputation for
directness. Having (very) successfully run crh, an Irish building-materials firm, for a
decade, Mr Manifold could hardly have been expected to be a passive and detached
chairman.
Accusations of abrasiveness are, in the markets’ eyes at least, a less serious crime than
Accusations of abrasiveness are, in the markets’ eyes at least, a less serious crime than
the value destruction of which other members of the board are plainly guilty. Sure, bp
is in much better shape than it was a year ago. Profits from producing oil rise with the
price of the commodity, after all. The company’s traders are making a fortune. Last
year it made a huge discovery o! the coast of Brazil. Its corporate structure is in the
process of being simplified. But the job is not even half finished. Costs are out of
control, including at its headquarters in St James’s. It is the most indebted of the major
oil companies and still bears the weight of some of its worst misadventures in
renewable energy.
Must bp always be as ungovernable as Britain? Oil majors often reflect the politics of
their home countries. Exxon and Chevron are run by men who care little about the
separation of powers. Both run the board and manage the company. Together the firms
are worth $400bn more than a decade ago. The top job at TotalEnergies, the French oil
major, is held by a former civil servant; at Eni, by a colourful Italian. The two have
outperformed their British rival. bp, once in e!ect a branch of the British state in the
Middle East, now mirrors its decline. Whitehall talks about “delivering at pace”; bp,
about “moving at pace”. Neither goes anywhere.
Manifold destiny
The psychodrama at bp could not have been better designed to embarrass Britain’s
business elite. One view is that an outsider was appointed to shake things up at a
national champion before being pushed out unceremoniously by a club of grandees
who talk about change without really wanting it. An alternative reading of Mr
Manifold’s tenure is about as bad: an amateur with little experience in the industry
thought he knew better than the experts and came unstuck. The big American firms
would hardly hand such power to someone new to drilling.
The main problem with reforming Britain’s business elite is that it doesn’t really have
one. Those in America, Japan, France and Germany are all easily pictured. But Britain?
Its once-mighty merchant banks have disappeared. So have its fund managers. Its
biggest companies, like bp, have mostly become a global clearing house for mediocre
management talent.
The City nowadays is best viewed as a battleground between European collectivist
politics and American finance. Capitalist villains such as oil companies, tobacco giants
and banks make up much of Britain’s stockmarket. But the top investment banks and
funds fly the American flag. The saga at bp is a case in point. It threw itself zealously
into net zero. Now it is being disciplined, mostly by Elliott Management, an American
hedge fund. A very British shambles—and an international joke.

Here's an update from the UK Telegraph. It's behind a paywall, so I've copied it here. Seems AM was also questioning the hospitality spend, with particular reference to highly expensive Wimbledon tickets. I recall seeing photos of BL and his partner at the tournament in July 2023. Nice to know who was really paying for them.

Ousted BP chairman hits back over ‘excessive’ spending
Dismissed chairman suggests his ‘determination to drive change’ is behind misconduct allegations

Albert Manifold said his cost-cutting measures, such as foregoing limousines and private jets, may have ‘ruffled feathers’

Christopher Jasper

The ousted chairman of BP has attacked a culture of “excessive” spending at the oil giant, including purchasing tickets for sports events such as Wimbledon.

Albert Manifold suggested he had been forced out of BP after raising concerns over “unnecessary expenditure”.

Mr Manifold was dismissed without warning on Tuesday, with people close to the BP board suggesting he had been shown the door because of a “volcanic” temper, “bullying” and “verbal abuse”.

However, in a 769-word statement published on Thursday, Mr Manifold said he had been the victim of “lies” from people hiding behind “anonymity”.

He said that during a 40-year career he had “never once had accusations made against me such as those made in recent days”.

During his eight-month tenure at BP, Mr Manifold is understood to have proposed a crackdown on unnecessary spending, such as some corporate events.

Events attended by board members at the expense of the company are said to have included Wimbledon.

A source close to Mr Manifold said: “He feels that that is one of the reasons the board turned on him. Some members didn’t share his commitment to cost-cutting and budgeting.”

Ousted BP chairman hits back over ‘excessive’ spending
Dismissed chairman suggests his ‘determination to drive change’ is behind misconduct allegations

Albert Manifold said his cost-cutting measures, such as foregoing limousines and private jets, may have ‘ruffled feathers’

Christopher Jasper
Transport industry editor
28 May 2026 4:21pm BST

The ousted chairman of BP has attacked a culture of “excessive” spending at the oil giant, including purchasing tickets for sports events such as Wimbledon.

Albert Manifold suggested he had been forced out of BP after raising concerns over “unnecessary expenditure”.

Mr Manifold was dismissed without warning on Tuesday, with people close to the BP board suggesting he had been shown the door because of a “volcanic” temper, “bullying” and “verbal abuse”.

However, in a 769-word statement published on Thursday, Mr Manifold said he had been the victim of “lies” from people hiding behind “anonymity”.

He said that during a 40-year career he had “never once had accusations made against me such as those made in recent days”.

During his eight-month tenure at BP, Mr Manifold is understood to have proposed a crackdown on unnecessary spending, such as some corporate events.

Events attended by board members at the expense of the company are said to have included Wimbledon.

A source close to Mr Manifold said: “He feels that that is one of the reasons the board turned on him. Some members didn’t share his commitment to cost-cutting and budgeting.”

In response, a source close to BP suggested it would not have been unusual for the firm to take up tickets to entertain business clients at events such as Wimbledon.

BP also has a history of hosting politicians – many of whom have backed the oil industry – at the tournament, and was revealed in 2023 to have donated tickets worth more than £4,200 to two MPs and a government minister.

Before his removal, Mr Manifold reportedly clashed with BP’s company secretary and board member Ben Mathews over costs.

Mr Mathews, whose role is to advise the board on corporate governance, was a key architect in the push to oust Mr Manifold, according to the Financial Times. He has since been put on medical leave because of stress after having dealt with the departures of Mr Manifold and his predecessor Helge Lund in quick succession.

BP did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding spending by directors.

In his statement, Mr Manifold said he was dismissed after he had “sought to streamline and refresh the board and started to advocate for a review of the workings of the board to improve efficiency”.

Called out excessive expenditure
Mr Manifold said he had wanted to “set an example” at BP and detailed how he demonstrated this by making his own coffee, buying his own lunch and resisting the use of private jets.

He added: “Where I saw unnecessary or excessive expenditure, I called it out. I had no interest in having a dedicated chauffeur-driven limousine at my beck and call on the occasions that I was in London.

“I, like most people, walked, took taxis, trains, etc. I had no interest in taking private aviation nor in availing myself of corporate tickets for sports events. I made my own coffee and bought my lunch in the local café. I sat in a small office, eschewing the grand corner-office privilege of previous chairmen.”

However, he said, those priorities “were not always shared by everyone”.

He added: “In business, small signals matter in driving change and contribute to ensuring no company has a culture of entitlement.

“All of this was my attempt to ensure the continuing independence and transparency of the board and the ongoing improvement in oversight and governance.”

Mr Manifold praised BP’s chief executive Meg O’Neill, its chief financial officer Kate Thomson and the wider executive team as being “among the finest people I have worked with”, saying they were “brimming with integrity”.

"Shareholders rejected a proposal that would ‌have required an independent board chair separate from the CEO role, according to preliminary ​voting results at the annual ​meeting on Wednesday"

Only a genius could come up with the perfect business model. Create fake jobs to review fake work, challenge fake wording, produce fake governance, and then report fake progress on risks everyone already understood. Then call it “enhanced oversight”.

But the good news is: several fake issues are being actively monitored and reported in several fake risk committees.

So that’s nice.

IBM is facing a lawsuit. The suit alleges racially discriminatory layoffs. It claims Black executives were targeted. This raises questions about IBM's diversity and governance. The case could impact investor perception and client relationships.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/ibm-lawsuit-over-black-executive-211421488.html

• IBM (NYSE:IBM) is facing a lawsuit that accuses the company of racially discriminatory layoffs targeting Black executives.

• The suit alleges a pattern of race based terminations tied to shifts in regulatory and compliance priorities.

• The case raises questions about IBM's diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and its internal governance controls.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/ibm-lawsuit-over-black-executive-211421488.html

Generally, a CEO with sustained poor performance is -on average- let go after ~3 bad years, if not less. That’s been studied pretty extensively across medium-to-large NYSE-listed companies, and the stats are easy enough to find. Yet Goff Murka is still here.

The decision about a CEO’s employment and performance reviews is handled by a committee of the Board. And Geoff himself is also on the Board. That’s one of the reasons CEOs often sit on boards in the first place: to avoid being completely at the mercy of the Board and to maintain some degree of stability and influence.

Funnily enough, three MDT board members also came out of GE. Funny how that works. At the very least, there’s an element of mutual back-scratching and shared incentives.

Being on a Board is a great gig: incredibly lucrative and relatively low-risk compared to operational executive roles. Great money for comparatively little legwork, with the worst-case consequence usually just being the loss of the seat. Geoff has a pretty nice setup with the GE network: everyone scratches each other’s backs and keeps the machine running.

This is basically a textbook corporate-governance criticism: board interlocks, executive networks, and incentive alignment reducing accountability for underperforming CEOs. We can stop speculating on the mystery of why GM has his job. It's this simple.

There’s simply far more incentive for everyone involved to sit tight and protect the status quo and their own interests than there is to force a change.

And that's where Elliott has come in. That's why they've gotten seats on the Board. What they do with the seats remains to be seen: join in on the grift, or try to save MDT as a company.

There is no mystery. It's rent-seeking in plain sight and will not change until the GE faction leaves or is removed from the Board.

New surveillance commissioner in board of directors?

https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/f5-adds-anand-eswaran-board-201000022.html

LAHSA will issue layoff notices to 284 employees. Their final day of work is scheduled for June 30. This action is part of a restructuring plan. The agency cites impending county funding cuts and a shift in its role. LAHSA will now focus on governance, data management, and federal funding.

Los Angeles, California

https://mynewsla.com/business/2026/04/20/lahsa-announces-plans-to-layoff-nearly-300-employees-amid-shift-in-funding-2/

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/oracle-layoff-reports-put-ai-140359566.html

If RTO policies are enforced with strict measurement, tracking, and compliance expectations across employees, why doesn’t the same rigor apply to Cloud leadership (Head of Cloud and his directs)?

GL17/GL18 leaders—many already significantly compensated from prior Amazon equity and long industry tenure—operate with materially less visible accountability, while execution is heavily dependent on engineering teams under them or contracting firms.

The pattern is consistent: delivery is externalized or engineering team , credit is cloud leadership , and accountability becomes diffused.

If operational discipline is the standard, it cannot be selective. It must apply uniformly across all levels—including senior leadership—based on measurable impact, not hierarchy.

Otherwise, it stops being governance and becomes structural protection of the top layer.

More for UHC but I wanted to know if anyone else got the ridiculous email about the “ Executive Complaints” email regarding appeals. For those not in the know basically if a Governor, share holder, state person or anyone else in the top 1% have UHC we are to work the case IMMEDIATELY and push it through and prioritize it above all the other cases to have a decision made ( and approved and paid for by UHG) within 24 hours. Must be nice to make more money than more than half the people at the company and demand a strict 24 hour turn around time while the disabled patient who actually needs care gets denied chemo therapy and their hospital stay because the company decided “ it wasn’t necessary”
God I F$)):& hate this company

P66 has announced that 2 new directors have been appointed to the Board of Directors.
I don’t know anything about them but Elliott says they’re pleased with the appointments.
If they’re pleased I’m pleased.

How to navigate gaps in

EAP architecture (Enterprise Architecture Program / Enterprise Architecture Practice)
Business Tech architecture
Management architecture decisions
Rosy Picture vs Reality

With decisions centralising and more governance and finance leadership coming in, what outcomes have people seen in similar situations — tighter oversight only, portfolio moves, or does this usually end in restructuring and layoffs?

Year after year, we see the same pattern: failed decisions, failed projects, failed products, failed initiatives, failed policies. The outcomes are consistent — underperformance and disruption.

Yet the accountability is not.

Senior leaders are rarely, if ever, held responsible for these failures. Instead, rank-and-file employees absorb the consequences — blamed, terminated, or laid off while the architects of these poor decisions remain untouched.

How does this culture persist? When poor judgment repeatedly goes unchecked at the top, it raises serious questions about governance, transparency, and whether advancement is based on merit or internal favoritism.

Failure at Dell has become all too systemic — and predictable.

It's only a matter of time now.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kyndryl-faces-governance-turmoil-legal-091414134.html

If the rumours are accurate, TD has reportedly made the decision to significantly reduce its New Business team — primarily those operating at field level. In effect, it appears the accountability process was STUBBED at that level.

What is notable, however, is that leadership responsibility for growth through new-logo acquisition does not appear to have been treated with the same level of scrutiny. The individual tasked with delivering that mandate seems to have avoided the cull, despite the outcomes not aligning with the original brief.

Whether this results in a lateral move or progression into another senior role, it raises broader questions around governance and performance accountability. When growth ambitions are not realised, it is reasonable to assess whether the issues sit purely with frontline execution — or whether strategic direction, positioning, and leadership oversight also played a role.

In any organisation, sustainable new-business acquisition underpins stability and long-term success. When that engine stalls, the impact is inevitably felt by those closest to the revenue line. Yet growth challenges are rarely isolated to field execution alone.

If product-market fit was genuinely a barrier, that insight should have been formally escalated and addressed through a structured mitigation plan. Where systemic obstacles remain unresolved, responsibility must extend beyond those executing the sales motion.

In competitive markets where alternatives such as SF or DB may already hold stronger positions, the key question becomes whether the opportunity to win new logos was constrained externally — or whether it was effectively STUBBED internally by gaps in strategy, capability, or vision.

When leadership continuity persists despite repeated growth underperformance, it inevitably prompts reflection on how accountability is applied — and whether standards are consistent across all levels of the organisation. All in all, its evident, those that should hold accountability, despite failure are continuously being rewarded and there lies the problem at TD!

ClawdBot (now OpenClaw over trademark issues) is officially the fastest growing open source project in history. When looking at graphs of open source adoption, it's a vertical line and nothing even comes close to matching its success. Why does it matter? Because it's the first comprehensive agentic system with an ever growing list of tools that is more or less completely unleashed (use at your own risk! remember it's early yet).

For those of you still convinced AI is just a chatbot, you should go out and take a look at what people are doing with this tool. Then tell us how jobs aren't going to be automated away. Remember too that, job displacement doesn't necessarily mean the AI is going to fully replace you, but that it's going to enable people to 10x their work and require significantly less headcount. Given how lackluster WF growth is, I doubt the growth needed to maintain headcount will keep pace with the productivity this will unlock.

As a bonus, go check out moltbook.com for laffs. It's hilarious to read through.

How does this relate to WF and layoffs you ask? It should be obvious once you understand what it is capable of. Your biggest firewall right now is data governance, and plenty of companies are working through this right now, including WF. Only Wells Fargo are way behind the curve, for obvious reasons of ineptitude.

Our Board are directly culpable for the situation we now find ourselves in. It is how corporate governance works.

My question: when will the market, activists etc hold them accountable and force change. It needs to happen.

I am curious. How many of you who survived the layoffs and still come to this page are witnessing catastrophic consequences to leadership decisions to eliminate departments, capabilities or expertise? How many of these have serious regulatory components or are millimeters away from causing harm to our branch teams?

For example, a department was eliminated in Enterprise Learning that updates all the online learning modules. We can’t seem to get courses fixed in the learning management system that branch teams need to gain access to their branch desktop or other important applications. I know several associates who have tried to raise this issue but their leaders don’t care because they have “more important fish to fry.”

In another important area, data governance was eliminated so that our AI is now fishing in a corrupt pond of data. But the push to use AI in the home office is intense.

Records and Information management has completely disappeared. There are no guard rails, well, anywhere. And the firm just hit an iceberg. At least, that’s what it feels like.

What are you seeing?

It is long past time for accountability in this sinking ship. Whatever loser or losers and their incompetent management team and/or cross functional teams internal and external should be made known. This place reorganizes so much that nobody knows who is in charge of what. It’s a complete disgrace, glossed over with constant empty buzzwords and kickoffs by talking heads. Everyone just blames someone else - the project team, the outsourced team, whatever and then reorganizes again. Somebody is responsible including their leadership and yes they are responsible for governance of outsourced work too. Just disgusting this clown show has lasted for so long. It’s one thing for a string of failures like blue jeans and finance transformation to continuously take place, but now gross incompetence and neglect has severely tarnished our basic service. Just pathetic. If they need savings then fire the people that can’t manage or do their basic jobs for once!!!! Fools. Happy new year Verizon. What a way to start it off.

Does the board face any legal risk given that they haven't acted in the best interest of the company?

They are likely to make a decision shortly regarding the GCC structure and associated work effort. Cognizant and Infosys appear to be the leading contenders for the GCC efforts. Heard some concerns that the process may have been influenced in a way that disproportionately favors Indian IT firm Infosys. Several technology leaders who work extensively with these partners were not included in the evaluation process

UnitedHealth Group has released findings from multiple independent reviews of its business practices following a June pledge from CEO Stephen Hemsley to conduct a transparent and comprehensive examination of company processes.

The reviews, conducted by FTI Consulting and Analysis Group, examined Medicare Advantage risk adjustment operations, utilization management practices, and Optum Rx’s administration of manufacturer discounts. UnitedHealth has adopted 23 action plans in response, with 65% targeted for completion by year-end and full implementation by March 31, 2026.

Ten things to know:

1. Across all three areas, the auditors concluded that UnitedHealth maintains strong operational controls and documentation. However, a common theme emerged: policy organization, centralization and governance structures need improvement. The risk adjustment review found policies weren’t always codified or recently reviewed; the UM review found corrective actions that weren’t fully remediated; and the PBM review recommended consolidating and streamlining policy documentation.

2. In response to the findings, UnitedHealth said it will ensure all policies and procedures are reviewed and approved at least annually, maintain centralized policy repositories, and enhance enterprise-wide governance structures outlining roles and responsibilities for policy oversight, compliance monitoring and risk assessment activities.

3. FTI reviewed Optum’s risk adjustment diagnostic coding standards against ICD-10-CM guidelines and found the content consistent with official coding guidance. The HouseCalls in-home assessment program received strong scores, with “comprehensive and well-organized” policies and evidence that the majority had been reviewed within the past 12 months.

4. FTI recommended separating coding audit functions from operations. Currently, targeted coding audits directed by Optum compliance are performed by coding resources that report into coding operations rather than compliance. FTI recommended establishing dedicated coding audit resources within compliance itself. UnitedHealth’s action plan confirms it will “establish an independent coding audit team within the broader Optum compliance organization.”

5. UnitedHealthcare holds national NCQA utilization management accreditation with 100% scores. The insurer achieved the accreditation in 2023, which deems its Medicaid and commercial plans 100% compliant with NCQA utilization management standards. When benchmarked against Medicaid peers in external quality reviews, UnitedHealthcare met full compliance in all 12 states examined, scoring 100% on prior authorization and practice guideline standards.

6. Nine of 62 UM audits showed corrective actions that weren’t fully remediated. While 42% of the UM-related audits FTI reviewed had no negative findings, auditors flagged instances where corrective actions from previous audits remained unresolved. FTI found UnitedHealthcare lacks “an overarching control” to ensure full remediation of all audit findings and recommended formalizing a standardized tracking mechanism with dashboards and internal thresholds independent of regulator deadlines.

7. The UM review questioned how quality management is operationalized. FTI observed that while multiple teams have roles in quality improvement for utilization management, “there did not appear to be a documented, centralized process or cross-functional accountabilities” to oversee systemic improvement opportunities. The quality management team’s UM role focuses on maintaining NCQA accreditation rather than leading broader quality improvement activities, FTI found.

8. Analysis Group identified 25 distinct controls in Optum Rx’s manufacturer discount administration. The PBM review concluded that Optum Rx has “built a robust and well-structured governance framework” for collecting discounts from dr-g manufacturers and disbursing them to clients.

9. Optum Rx was advised to improve client reporting on why certain claims don’t generate rebates. While the PBM provides information on claims deemed ineligible for manufacturer discounts upon client request, Analysis Group recommended assessing opportunities to enhance this reporting proactively. The firm also suggested refining escalation processes for manufacturer disputes and non-payment, and evaluating automation opportunities for low-complexity, high-volume processes.

10. All three reviews had limitations. The auditors did not test the effectiveness of controls, did not perform legal analysis, and expressly disclaimed any opinion on legal compliance. FTI’s UM and risk adjustment reviews focused only on current-state policies, not historical practices. Analysis Group noted its PBM review “did not identify deficiencies” but rather “opportunities to further enhance Efficiency

All the data collection that supports the initiative is an ongoing matrix submitted for supplier governance reason. Nothing changes with the data. And suddenly they are being reused and presented as a new initiative. This is not any reinvention! Just game playing. Coming from the person right at the top, I can conclude that the company is doomed.