zlacker

I agree with what you're saying, however I think talking in absolutes is counter-productive:

> No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions

In my opinion, hard cutoffs like this create perverse incentives, but there definitely need to be consequences for actions.

>>coremo+(OP)
What do you think a good compromise would be?

>>Eddy_V+O6
I don't think I'm qualified to provide an answer - trying to detail how execs should not be able to profit from fail-cases like this is a mine-field of edge cases, I expect.

I do think that you shouldn't be doing anything to destroy their lives "no pension" (outside of any judicial outcomes); but it should be sufficiently comprehensive such that you can declare both that no one profited from malfeasance/incompetance and that poeple in positions governed by these provisions are strongly encouraged to make sure that they don't fall foul of them.