It has the look and appearance of a complete Disney capitulation. DeSantis commenting with words to the effect that “it was all Burbank driven, not Florida driven,” shows what’s really going on. The truth is that Disney is in a massive fight with Nelson Peltz over control and direction, and the Company needed to end this distraction. Disney gave DeSantis his political win, and DeSantis is giving Disney de facto control. The agreement to consult with Disney tell you everything; everyone understands the importance of Disney to the economy and they will placate Disney moving forward. I can’t imagine Disney will continue its 11th Circuit appeal, either. Its principles were flushed once Peltz started his fight in earnest.
I don't know much about the law surrounding this case but wouldn't Disney have to prove that the government did this because of speaking out against the bill? I know on the face of it that's likely the reason but somehow they would have to have proof like a document or a recording where Desantis said "I'm going to punish them for speaking out by removing their protected district".
I personally think it was a pointless distraction and wouldn’t have done it to start with, but putting that aside there’s nothing about this settlement to suggest to supporters that “well, this was a mistake.” The end result of this settlement is that the DeSantis appointed board is still in place, all of the last minute things the old captive board did to try to tie the new board’s hands are now invalidated, most of the litigation has gone away, and Disney has agreed to pause the remaining litigation. It’s tough to cast that as too much of a rebuke of the Governor’s office when it, by and large, is almost exactly what they wanted. Disney’s “win” is largely that the Board isn’t going to try to prevent them entirely from future development, which I’m relatively certain no one involved wanted to do in the first place. My guess is this settlement came about when Disney realized the state leadership is already pretty pro-business and the minimal incremental advantages they could conceivably gain from “wouldn’t it be nice if we could just keep regulating ourselves” aren’t worth staying in a drawn out political and legal fight over.
That seems to be at least part of what happened with the ruling a few weeks ago, where the suggested that since all special districts created before 1969 were subject to the law that DeSantis wasn’t singling out Disney. I also think swampbabe is right that the administration made a few comments suggesting the move was made in response to Disney’s comments.
there was only one district created before 1969. Disney was targeted, the board doesn't want to stand on principles when they are in a proxy fight with activists. I'm sure they got some assurances that the comp plan revisions will depict their requests. Curious as to how many mitigation credits disney got to keep. that could be worth tens of millions
The settlement agreement (linked in my post 18) identifies them as the credits created under three SFWMD environmental resource permits, two Army Corps permits, and three FWC permits. The permit numbers are in there, but I’m not interested enough to go looking for permit files to look at them.
Oh I am pretty sure that Disney was targeted, but I do believe that a few other special districts were affected by the law. This article reports that the law eliminated six special districts including Reedy Creek. Will new Disney special district bill affect those on Treasure Coast?
there were a handful that were Bradford County Development Authority, Bradford County Sunshine Water Control District, Broward County Eastpoint Water and Sewer District, Franklin County Hamilton County Development Authority, Hamilton County Marion County Law Library, Marion County Reedy Creek Improvement District, Orange and Osceola counties
Each UMAM credit is worth $125k + . 800 credits = $100M. Those add up quick. I would be willing to bet those credits were /are entitled to Reedy Creek as RC would have been the land owner and ltc provider. Otherwise, disney would likely have to buy credits for expansion plans. Ive seen umam scores and credit requirements break more than one job. They will have to do a permit mod to transfer whatever hasn't already been allocated from RC to DW. That will be only real way to tell the number and type of credits. It wouldn't surprise me to see these to be worth several hundred million moved from at risk to secured on the balance sheet they are trying to clean up. Add in an agreement to support their comp plan and this was business over principle.
Listening to this. Matt Belloni and Lucas Shaw talking about the fact that the "settlement" was driven by this proxy war and Iger's need to keep Perlmutter and Nelson Peltz (both loathsome individuals with terrible track records) off the board. But they have a 2-25% chance of winning tomorrow's vote. A lot of dissatisfaction with Iger still not having a succession plan.
Proxy fight failed. At least in this piece, I cannot tell the count. There was speculation that of either Peltz or Perlmutter got 20%, that would still be an effective vote of limited confidence FWIW from the Hollywood Reporter: A source says that Iger secured 94 percent of the vote for his board seat. Lagomasino beat Peltz by a margin of about two to one, with the activist securing about 30 percent of the vote for his seat. Rasulo lost his vote by a margin of five to one.
I wonder if settling the suit was a deal to get votes in this battle. Right wing investor pushing Disney to compromise?
They are very right wing, very DeSantis like. Like Ron, they want to mandate white supremacy in entertainment: The 81-year-old Peltz, who has admitted he “never claimed” to have experience in the media business, made the comments about “The Marvels” and “Black Panther” in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “Why do I have to have a Marvel [movie] that’s all women?” Peltz asked rhetorically. “Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?” “Black Panther” does not have an all-Black cast, nor does “The Marvels” have an all-female cast. “Black Panther,” starring Chadwick Boseman, was a bona fide blockbuster, reaping $1.35 billion at the worldwide box office, while 2023’s “The Marvels” was a flop with a $206 million total haul. (The earlier 2019 “Captain Marvel” starring Brie Larson in the title role grossed $1.13 billion.) Iger, speaking last fall at the New York Times’ DealBook Summit, acknowledged that Disney productions should focus on storytelling rather than advocating particular agendas. “Creators lost sight of what their No. 1 objective needed to be. We have to entertain first. It’s not about messages,” Iger said. On that point, Peltz said in the FT interview, “People go to watch a movie or a show to be entertained. They don’t go to get a message.” Disney Activist Investor Nelson Peltz Questions 'Woke' Marvel Films “I called Ike and told him to tell his team to stop putting up roadblocks and ordered that we put both Black Panther and Captain Marvel into production,” he wrote in the book. Disney continues to stand by this decision. In a letter to shareholders Monday, titled “Oh, Nelson,” the company specifically referenced the Marvel quotes as well as his statement in the article: “What sense is being a billionaire if you’re not a bully?” “Imagine the damage Peltz would do to Disney’s boardroom with these perspectives,” the letter reads. Nelson Peltz Criticizes Disney's "Woke" Strategy With 'Black Panther' Perlmutter tried to keep Black Panther from being made.
so who did they have to mollify to get rid of P & P? Who forced disney to compromise their principles to win a proxy fight?
