When you see something like this, it begs asking what failure in their system led to this. Why didn't anyone pick it up?

From a shareholder standpoint, it's not a particularly clear pond.

[The split between the former friends is a sign] that professional responsibility as a director trumps personal relationships, ... a positive change.

No director anywhere from this point on would want to put themselves through this kind of ordeal that the directors at Disney just went through for eight years. Now boards realize they must be more independent and circumspect.

The board has to decide whether to sell. Thirty-five percent is a pretty big number. They have to decide if that's the right course or they may have a shareholder revolt.

I do not view this as a negative opinion from a corporate governance standpoint. It should not make those who ignore their responsibilities happy nor should it discourage those who seek greater levels of oversight of directors.

Failure to be independent and failure to be circumspect carries a serious threat of liability.

Wow, he's in an awkward position.

That would go an awful long way to restoring confidence.