I agree after giving the world magnum, millennium, wicked twister, and ttd he did all he could do. I305 was a bonus as well as maverick.

Mr. Ouimett has given us gatesleeper and dancee.

Bro, nobody has even ridden Banshee yet. And that's the best nickname you could come up with? I expect better from you.

You wouldn't have wanted to work under him man...Ignorant and annoying ass at times

That's for sure. And he certainly had a different standard for himself, his kin and his pals than he did for other employees.

He was from a very different era, sayeth one of the older peeps on this board, rather ironically.

Perhaps Cedar Fair will take advantage of "executive bonus claw back provisions" to cost recover part of the losses due to the Falfas episode. When performance bonuses are granted and paid based upon false numbers, the SEC allows for a claw back of the overpaid benefit. If I were Richard Kinzel, or his council, I would be concerned. Given Mr. Kinzel may have filed a false report with the SEC concerning the Jack Falfas departure, well, it could result in recovery efforts by Cedar Fair.

For an interesting read concerning poor corporate governance (involving another party with Cleveland ties) please see this recent Plain-Dealer article:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/05/pilot_flying_j_director_overse.html

The SEC moved to strengthen corporate governance by allowing for executive bonus claw backs following the shenanigans at Saks Fifth Avenue. In the Saks case the resigning executives who allegedly engineered the fraud, and profited by receiving quarterly bonuses, for which they did not in reality qualify, kept the ill gotten gains.

Saks was not by any means the only such case of poor corporate governance related to executive over-payments. But it helped end the practice and spur the SEC onto tighter rules and regulations.

Quick update this week: http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20140413/ohio-supreme-court-hears-argument-between-cedar-point-parent-company-former-employee

I think the whole issue remains the reinstatement of Falfas, something that Cedar Fair does not want. Since Ohio is an At Will State, can't they fire an employee without cause? I understand the backpay and benefits issues, but I don't see how a court can order a company to reinstate/employee an individual.

Just another example of Kinzel loosing Cedar Fair more Nickels.

That would depend on the terms of the contract between the company and Mr. Falfas. As we have seen with another appellate decision recently in another state, things may not be as they seem, skim milk may be masquerading as cream.

An excellent case review featuring specific observations concerning the supreme court arguments and analysis.

Worth the read:

http://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2014/04/whats-on-their-minds-enforcing-a-shotgun-marriage-cedar-fair-l-p-v-jacob-falfas/

That looks like something right out of my "Fundamentals of Business Law" textbook. I'm definitely interested to see what the courts do about the question of demanding specific performance, because that was one of the topics of the class a few weeks ago!

"There's more than corn in Indiana."

This is not an off topic post.

^true......i for one am a hoosier, born and raised.....and still live here lol

Court: Falfas NOT Entitled to be reinstated

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2014/09/18/Court-Falfas-not-entitled-to-be-reinstated-as-COO-of-Cedar-Fair.html

Preview of Supreme Court Ruling here:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2014/2014-Ohio-3943.pdf

Note this is not the published and final ruling--some minor changes may occur prior to it being reported [published].

This is a bad omen for binding arbitration. This sets the mold for challenge of a variety of rulings by arbitration panels. It is the job of those drafting agreements to be clear as to the terms, conditions, and remedies of those agreements. The court should not have placed its noise under the tent of arbitration. No abuse legal occurred here. Just poor drafting of an employment contract.

For the pitiful, detail starved, Sandusky Register report please see:

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/news/business/6110506

Why is this a bad omen for arbitration?

Specific performance has never been preferred in employment cases...unless the contract specifically allowed for such, which this one did not.

Mr. Falfas is still entitled to monetary damages...

^ Is that another court case in the making?

No. It's the same one...continuing, remanded to the lower court to decide damages.

Jacob T. “Jack” Falfas is not entitled to be reinstated as chief operating officer of Cedar Fair, owner of Sandusky’s Cedar Park, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled today.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2014/09/18/Court-Falfas-not-entitled-to-be-reinstated-as-COO-of-Cedar-Fair.html

Why is that sentence so funny to me?

Excellent analysis and brief on the Jack Falfas Ohio Supreme Court ruling:

http://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2014/09/merit-decision-former-cedar-fair-coo-does-not-get-his-job-back-cedar-fair-l-p-v-falfas/

Legal analysis of Ohio Supreme Court ruling:

http://www.exemplify.com/employment-agreement-dispute

Legal eagles will enjoy this read.