This is a nonsensical declaration on the face, because it is being made by the CFO who ousted him. What this actually is is a massive mistake. Chapek was not terminated with cause, he was ousted and that triggered all of his hush-clauses and payouts in his contract. He is a very very rich man thanks to being cut in such a way barely a month into being renewed as CEO for three years.

Chapek will live a quiet life of plenty for as long as he remains quiet about what kind of terminal cancer Disney has got. But Disney can guarantee he won't by throwing around criminal assertions and character murder like this. They are testing the limits of a man's desire to be thought well of by contractually gagging him before heaping him with libel.

Here is what this 'rumor' actually does: it pre-declares that Disney's books were cooked before anyone goes looking at it too closely. Offering up a scapegoat they already sacrificed last week don't worry bro. Why predeclare something like that unless you're about to open the books to someone like a potential buyer? All of this reflects very badly on Disney.

To repeat myself, according to reports before this, Chapek was terminated 'without cause.' If you've seen Better Call Saul you will know what this means. If you haven't, what it means is he gets full insulation and compensation of his contract out to the end of its current value, and since he was JUST rehired, that is massive value. Contracts like that are designed to protect the individual from the company randomly deciding to be a dick to him. The payout is usually way WAY more than just keeping the guy on for his term would be. A company will NOT do that if they have a cause. Claiming they had a cause now, is just panic on top of whatever panic caused them to do this in the first place.

Chapek is a failed and disgraced former CEO today. But if Disney wants to push that, I think they have a lot more to fear from him firing back than he has to fear from them cutting off his retirement fund. Especially since when criminal assertions enter the picture, nullifying a contract gets much muddier. It's entirely in the realm of possibility that he could break all of his non-discloses to defend himself from a criminal assertion and retain all of the benefits of his contract. It's a question of risking it. Disney is encouraging that risk, and that is what I'm saying is a massive mistake on their part.