Disney’s latest salvo in a proxy fight with activist investor Trian Fund Management highlights the firm’s “silent partner” Ike Perlmutter and his “difficult history with Bob Iger .” That critique came in a 20-page slide deck , a follow-up to an anti-Trian video released by
Disney earlier this week . The clash has intensified ahead of Disney’s annual shareholder meeting on April 3. The new slide deck, titled “Correcting Trian’s Fiction With Facts,” revisits a number of prior arguments, many of which were included in the video. (Trian laid out its case in a 130-page white paper earlier this month.) Related Stories News Disney Shares Extend Recent Gains As Company Renews Attacks On Activist Investor Nelson Peltz News Jay Rasulo Says "Disney Runs In My Blood"; Former Parks Chief With Activist Investor Nelson Peltz Not Out "To
fire The CEO" For
Hollywood observers in particular, though, Disney’s take on former Marvel boss Perlmutter is intriguing. It also cuts a bit deeper than previous public comments on the former exec by Iger and the company. Perlmutter, who has long been friendly with Trian co-founder and front man Nelson Peltz, has been the firm’s “silent partner” in the effort to secure board seats for Peltz and ex-Disney CFO Jay Rasulo, Disney maintains. “The former Perlmutter’s fraught history with Bob Iger appears to have driven his collaboration with Peltz to run a proxy contest,” the document states, noting that Perlmutter owns about 79% of the shares Peltz “claims” to own. Trian “neglected to address Perlmutter’s well-chronicled, difficult history with Bob Iger and many Disney employees, which is a highly relevant consideration for shareholders,” in Disney’s view. The firm “has said little about the role and influence of Perlmutter — it is not credible that Perlmutter is truly just sitting on the sidelines.” Perlmutter’s oversight of Marvel’s studio “was severed in 2015,” the document continues. The parting was “due to his ongoing antagonization of the creative team and vehement opposition to expanding the group’s output to films like
Black Panther and
Captain Marvel .” Those films went on to gross $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion at the global
box office, respectively. Ties with Perlmutter were completely cut in March 2023 “as part of the company’s cost reduction program,” the slide deck unsentimentally adds. His alignment with Peltz and the campaign to dislodge Iger began soon thereafter. Rasulo doesn’t escape scrutiny in the latest blast from Burbank. The former CFO, who left Disney in 2015 after being passed over for the CEO role, and Peltz “do not add incremental skills to Disney’s board,” Disney asserts. Since Rasulo joined the board of iHeartMedia, the company’s performance metrics have only gotten worse, and the exec “failed to address streaming’s challenge to legacy radio.” The exec “did not drive” either strategy or succession planning at Disney, the company says, and he “has no credible succession planning experience.” Trian has made succession a key aspect of its criticism of Disney. Since returning as CEO in November 2022, Iger has repeatedly said a formal process of succession planning is under way and that he will pass the baton for certain at the end of his current contract in 2026. Trian has noted his multiple reversals of previously stated plans to step down during his 14-year initial run as CEO, as well as his decision to hand control to Bob Chapek in 2020. Chapek ended up being ousted by the board after a series of missteps and increasing concern by Iger about the direction of the company. Meanwhile, as the proxy saber-rattling continues, a notable business figure has aligned with Iger. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon , a highly influential figure in banking and finance circles, sent a statement to CNBC laying out his rationale. “Bob is a first-class executive and outstanding leader who I’ve known for decades,” Dimon said in the statement. “He knows the media and entertainment business cold and has the successful track record to prove it. It’s a complicated industry filled with creative talent, requiring the unique expertise and engagement skills that Bob possesses. Putting people on a Board unnecessarily can harm a company. I don’t know why shareholders would take that risk, especially given the significant progress the company has made since Bob came back.”