Intel Ex-CEO Pat Gelsinger and Current Co-CEO David Zinsner Face Shareholder Lawsuit Over Foundry Services Claims

[AleksandarK]

A significant legal challenge has emerged for Intel's leadership as shareholders aim for the company's representation of its foundry business performance. LR Trust has filed a lawsuit against former CEO Pat Gelsinger and current co-CEO David Zinsner, seeking to return substantial executive compensation amid allegations of misleading statements and financial mismanagement. The lawsuit centers on Intel Foundry Services (IFS), a division that was once positioned as a crucial growth engine for Team Blue. The Intel Foundry, as it is now called, is here referred as Intel Foundry Services, which was its older name back in 2023. According to court documents, LR Trust claims that while Intel's leadership painted an optimistic picture of IFS's trajectory, the division struggled to attract major clients and accumulated significant losses. Gelsinger's $207 million compensation package is at the heart of the dispute, where shareholders now demand that these funds should be returned to the company.

The legal action also targets additional compensation received by Zinsner, arguing that executive rewards were secured through misrepresenting the company's financial health. The allegations point to a troubled 2023, during which Intel's chip production unit reportedly lost $7 billion. These challenges extended into 2024, as increased investments in new fab facilities further strained the company's finances. The lawsuit alleges that executives issued "materially false and misleading" statements regarding cost savings and revenue potential, ultimately driving shareholder value to the very bottom. LR Trust's legal filing accuses Intel's leadership of breaching its financial duties through inadequate internal controls and inaccurate financial disclosures. Beyond seeking the return of executive compensation, the lawsuit pursues damages and legal cost reimbursement, with any recovered funds potentially being returned to Intel's coffers. Intel has yet to respond formally to these allegations. This is just another lawsuit in line as Intel already has several other lawsuits going on, with one recent from August.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[AleksandarK]

Realistically, Intel always puts a disclaimer about forward-looking statements. Plus, the compensation issued to executives is always backed by lawyer work. I don't think that this will go nicely in court.

 

[phanbuey]

Realistically, Intel always puts a disclaimer about forward-looking statements. Plus, the compensation issued to executives is always backed by lawyer work. I don't think that this will go nicely in court.

My wife was an attorney for a firm that did this type of securities litigation -- exclusively this, where shareholders sue management for their performance/misrepresentation etc. It's not really something you can disclaim and the overwhelming majority of the time the goal is to get a settlement. This will very likely not end up in court, but intel will pay out an undisclosed chunk of cash to make it go away.

Their stock tanked by almost 50% at the foundry performance news, so for sure the truth about the foundries was hidden from the investors until the last second by management -- I would imagine there's a case here. I'm a little surprised there aren't more of these, given how badly Intel management has performed on virtually all fronts.

 

[AcE]

Realistically, Intel always puts a disclaimer about forward-looking statements. Plus, the compensation issued to executives is always backed by lawyer work. I don't think that this will go nicely in court.

Welcome to the US where every suit is tried.

 

[Max Mojo]

Is there any correlation?

 

[Vya Domus]

While I don't like Intel these sort of claims are always ridiculous, nothing is guaranteed, of course they try to paint everything they do in a positive manner. Unless they straight up lie about their finances I don't see anything illegal here.

 

[phanbuey]

While I don't like Intel these sort of claims are always ridiculous, nothing is guaranteed, of course they try to paint everything they do in a positive manner. Unless they straight up lie about their finances I don't see anything illegal here.

The lawsuit isn't about illegal, it's "The way you conducted yourselves was in breach of your managerial duty to the company, and made the investors incur substantial losses when your mismanagement and misrepresentations tanked the value of the company".

In other words, management has a duty to be clear and honest with the shareholders (usually as per their contract), and to conduct themselves in the best interest of the company (also typically as per their contract) -- that duty was breached, and that breach caused material damages.

It's a civil case about money/damages, nothing illegal.

 

[eidairaman1]

The lawsuit isn't about illegal, it's "The way you conducted yourselves was in breach of your managerial duty to the company, and made the investors incur substantial losses when your mismanagement and misrepresentations tanked the value of the company".

In other words, management has a duty to be clear and honest with the shareholders (usually as per their contract), and to conduct themselves in the best interest of the company (also typically as per their contract) -- that duty was breached, and that breach caused material damages.

It's a civil case about money/damages, nothing illegal.

In a way like raja koduri overpromising on stuff, intel was strike 2 against him, strike 1 was AMD.

 

[Steevo]

The lawsuit isn't about illegal, it's "The way you conducted yourselves was in breach of your managerial duty to the company, and made the investors incur substantial losses when your mismanagement and misrepresentations tanked the value of the company".

In other words, management has a duty to be clear and honest with the shareholders (usually as per their contract), and to conduct themselves in the best interest of the company (also typically as per their contract) -- that duty was breached, and that breach caused material damages.

It's a civil case about money/damages, nothing illegal.

They should have the right to sue him for damages that he caused the brand and shareholders for misleading or patently false statements that he derived financial gain from.

Most of these guys have umbrella insurance policies for millions to protect themselves. A million dollar policy is only like $100 a month.

 

[notoperable]

200mln compensation, that's roughly ~2.8% of the 7.4bln subsidiary money in the foundry deal - if i got the math right

 

[bonehead123]

seeking to return substantial executive compensation

shareholders now demand that these funds should be returned to the company.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..........

Sorry, but now that I've stopped ROTFLMAO, I can tell you:

A) Good luck with that
B) Nevar gonna happen
C) Only in your wildest friggin dreams

The shareholders can demand anything they want, but that money is long, long, long gone, stashed away in some foreign country's banks, where the US has no jurisdiction or treaties with.

If the insurance doesn't cover whatever the judgements might be, then oh well, they'll just have to take what they get & be happy....MINUS the gazillions in lawyer's fees, of course, which the claimants will have to pay if they lose, which is highly likely without any "smoking gun" evidence or eye-witness testimonies

 

[notoperable]

Realistically, Intel always puts a disclaimer about forward-looking statements. Plus, the compensation issued to executives is always backed by lawyer work. I don't think that this will go nicely in court.

Rather an very happy and eager team of lawyers on both sides. Best that can happen to any parrot is to sit in for a compensation deal. It's like early Christmas with Hanukkah combined and usually a very smooth ride for legals, they clock in and make serious faces and want to hear all of everything for hours, days even, whatever you do it's profit - nothing wrong about that.

All things aside, to get 200 mln compensation while taking a dump is hard to beat

 

[Daven]

IFS was all smoke and mirrors. There were never any big third party customers and any insinuation by Intel that they were securing large external orders was all a lie.

 

[AcE]

Depends if “1.8nm” is on track or not, if it’s not then they have merit to their claims.

 

[notoperable]

Nah, Pat has it all covered up with Divine Intervention.