• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Corporate Greed Hall of Shame

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
29,826
Location
Yokohama, Japan
I'm not inclined to be an anti-capitalist, but stories like these make my blood boil:

CEO of failing hospital chain got $250M amid patient deaths, layoffs, bankruptcy

As the more than 30 hospitals in the Steward Health Care System scrounged for cash to cover supplies, shuttered pediatric and neonatal units, closed maternity wards, laid off hundreds of health care workers, and put patients in danger, the system paid out at least $250 million to its CEO and his companies, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.

The newly revealed financial details bring yet more scrutiny to Steward CEO Ralph de la Torre, a Harvard University-trained cardiac surgeon who, in 2020, took over majority ownership of Steward from the private equity firm Cerberus. De la Torre and his companies were reportedly paid at least $250 million since that takeover. In May, Steward, which has hospitals in eight states, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Critics—including members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)—allege that de la Torre stripped the system's hospitals of assets, siphoned payments from them, and loaded them with debt, all while reaping huge payouts that made him obscenely wealthy.

Is any of this criminal? Seems like it should be, and perhaps an investigation will find that some crimes have been committed. He lived a very lavish lifestyle, buying a 190-foot yacht for $40 million and a 500-acre ranch for $7.2 million while the hospitals he ran were loaded up with debt and he paid himself and his companies millions.
 
It could be. I think this is a rampant problem with healthcare conglomerations.

Look at Sutter Health. They kind of had a monopoly on hospital care in the Central/North California and just agreed to a $13 million settlement according to DOJ (link available upon request).

Back in the 90s my company had a market research contract with them and I was the point person. They were just horrible, horrible people (one in particular whom I'll just call "Pat".

Also dealt with (for profit) hospital CEO's in the region who were more interested in profits than patient care. Most were religiously affiliated, for what that's worth.
 
To be a CEO of one company while simultaneously owning other companies that do business with said company (particularly business such as "consulting" where exactly what is provided and the value of such can be difficult to quantify) seems like a yellow if not a red flag to me.
 
I'm not inclined to be an anti-capitalist, but stories like these make my blood boil:

CEO of failing hospital chain got $250M amid patient deaths, layoffs, bankruptcy



Is any of this criminal? Seems like it should be, and perhaps an investigation will find that some crimes have been committed. He lived a very lavish lifestyle, buying a 190-foot yacht for $40 million and a 500-acre ranch for $7.2 million while the hospitals he ran were loaded up with debt and he paid himself and his companies millions.

Stuff like that is baked into capitalism. When an economic system insists there can be no restrictions placed on the owners of capital, said owners will inevitably default to bad behaviour.
 
To be a CEO of one company while simultaneously owning other companies that do business with said company (particularly business such as "consulting" where exactly what is provided and the value of such can be difficult to quantify) seems like a yellow if not a red flag to me.

Sure, but a flag to whom? Maybe the board hired this guy as CEO precisely because of the vertical integration opportunities he brings to the table. Maybe part of why they were able to make an attractive job offer is because they would let him line his pockets both ways.
 
Sure, but a flag to whom? Maybe the board hired this guy as CEO precisely because of the vertical integration opportunities he brings to the table. Maybe part of why they were able to make an attractive job offer is because they would let him line his pockets both ways.

The CEO was also the majority owner at the time. I think he hired himself. Perhaps he had a hand-picked board of directors rubber stamp that decision, but nothing in the article suggests that this is the case.

Critics—including members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)—allege that de la Torre stripped the system's hospitals of assets, siphoned payments from them, and loaded them with debt, all while reaping huge payouts that made him obscenely wealthy.

Alleged greed

For instance, de la Torre sold the land under the system's hospitals to a large hospital landlord, Medical Properties Trust, leaving Steward hospitals on the hook for large rent payments. Under de la Torre's leadership, Steward also paid a management consulting firm $30 million a year to "provide executive oversight and overall strategic directive." But, de la Torre was the majority owner of the consulting firm, which also employed other Steward executives. As the WSJ put it, Steward "effectively paid its CEO’s firm, which employed Steward executives, for executive management services for Steward."
Also:
Steward distributed $111 million to shareholders. With de la Torre owning 73 percent of the company at the time, his share would have been around $81 million, the WSJ reported.
And then:
"At a Steward-owned Massachusetts hospital, a woman died after giving birth when doctors realized mid-surgery that the supplies needed to treat her were previously repossessed due to Steward’s financial troubles." The hospital reportedly owed the supplier $2.5 million in unpaid bills.

Sounds like the money that the hospital needed to operate, and pay for necessary supplies wasn't there because the CEO was paying himself rather than paying bills to suppliers.
 

I agree he should be punished for the crimes he committed but in essence he was also a victim of scammers so seems a very severe sentence. Given the severity of that sentence I am wondering why the bloke they interview - Mitchell - wasn't also charged with failure to report a crime and something akin to England and Wales's attempting to pervert the course of justice?
 
I agree he should be punished for the crimes he committed but in essence he was also a victim of scammers so seems a very severe sentence. Given the severity of that sentence I am wondering why the bloke they interview - Mitchell - wasn't also charged with failure to report a crime and something akin to England and Wales's attempting to pervert the course of justice?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me like he was indeed judged for the crime committed: embezzlement. What he spent the embezzled money on, is just the story of his being stupid, and we don't punish people for being stupid. It would have been no different if he'd spent it on gambling and hookers in Vegas.
 
Also dealt with (for profit) hospital CEO's in the region who were more interested in profits than patient care. Most were religiously affiliated, for what that's worth.

That's just fulfilling their duty as corporate officers. This is a feature not a bug of capitalism.
 
I agree he should be punished for the crimes he committed but in essence he was also a victim of scammers so seems a very severe sentence. Given the severity of that sentence I am wondering why the bloke they interview - Mitchell - wasn't also charged with failure to report a crime and something akin to England and Wales's attempting to pervert the course of justice?

When you steal money to give to scammers why should that be more lenient than stealing it for yourself? He thought it was stealing it for himself he was going to make a huge profit off the whole thing in his mind.
 
When you steal money to give to scammers why should that be more lenient than stealing it for yourself? He thought it was stealing it for himself he was going to make a huge profit off the whole thing in his mind.

one difference if he had stole it for himself it could potentially be recovered.

so i guess that makes it worse.
 
Is that actually a law in the UK? :eek:

Most western countries have SOME very limited crimes where it's a crime not to report them. E.g., child abuse. Not sure if and how it would apply to embezzlement, though, since even the corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud (by an employee or subsidiary, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist) IIRC isn't even in effect yet, so that would be the mother of ex-post-facto.
 
Most western countries have SOME very limited crimes where it's a crime not to report them. E.g., child abuse. Not sure if and how it would apply to embezzlement, though, since even the corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud (by an employee or subsidiary, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist) IIRC isn't even in effect yet, so that would be the mother of ex-post-facto.
Reporting of suspected child abuse is generally mandatory for those who have children in their care (eg teachers). I doubt that it applies to general members of the public.

In the case in question, Hanes denied using bank funds when asked by Mitchell. It would be a very chilling law if Mitchell was expected to play detective or (worse) report him anyway.
 
Given the severity of that sentence I am wondering why the bloke they interview - Mitchell - wasn't also charged with failure to report a crime and something akin to England and Wales's attempting to pervert the course of justice?

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but the way I understand it, for something to qualify as an attempt to pervert the course of justice, it must be a lot more than that. I mean stuff like faking or disposing of evidence, intimidating jurors or witnesses, blocking a police investigation, that kinda stuff.

Also the way I understand it, some kind of justice has to already be underway, i.e., at the very least something was reported, before you can attempt to pervert or obstruct it.
 
Is that actually a law in the UK? :eek:

No.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/reporting-crime

If you witness a crime you have a vital role to play in bringing the criminals to justice. You may well be feeling upset and have doubts about reporting what you have seen. There is no legal obligation to contact the police, but the information you give them could bring a criminal to justice. Reporting the crime to the police could prevent further crimes being committed and protect others from becoming victims.

As others have said, there maybe situations that place a legal duty on you to report a crime (e.g. as a teacher) but I can't be bothered to look them up.
 
Back
Top Bottom