Talk:Berkshire Hathaway

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 May 2024 and 24 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swagsberyls (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by FULBERT (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Restoring sourced Controversies section involving subsidiaries

Hi all,

Yesterday, a neutral and fully sourced “Controversies” section was added to this article. It referenced publicly documented issues involving subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway — including:

• A DOJ settlement related to TridentCare (disability and racial discrimination)

• Whistleblower retaliation allegations involving NAVEX (used company-wide)

• A currently active human rights complaint filed through the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Procor Limited (Marmon Group subsidiary)

All were supported by mainstream news sources and written in neutral language.

Editor Panamitsu removed the section citing “non-neutral mentions of one-off incidents about subsidiaries,” but provided no further policy-based rationale.

Given that:

1. These are documented legal and ethical matters,

2. They involve Berkshire’s own ethics infrastructure (NAVEX), and

3. Similar content appears on pages for other large corporations,

…I’d like to request input from other editors. Does this not meet the threshold for inclusion under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE?

@User:Panamitsu – I noticed you removed the section I added. I’ve outlined the rationale and sources above. Happy to discuss it further here.

Thanks in advance. Faceshank (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to further clarify why this case is directly connected to Berkshire Hathaway, and not simply a “one-off” involving a subsidiary.

All employees across Berkshire Hathaway’s subsidiaries — including Procor Limited (via Marmon) — are required to sign and abide by a company-wide Code of Conduct and Ethics. This document is issued by Berkshire’s corporate leadership and includes a letter personally signed by Warren Buffett.

I have copies of this, and would be happy to privately share it with any editor for verification. This is not “local” to one employer — it’s a system-wide mandate enforced through NAVEX, Berkshire’s third-party ethics hotline.

Given that:

• This document sets behavioural expectations for all Berkshire subsidiaries, and

• The ethics hotline that triggered some of these cases is tied directly to this mandate, and

• This policy is referenced in the investigation materials already submitted to the AHRC,

…I would respectfully ask for clarification as to how this is not relevant to Berkshire Hathaway’s article, or how the original content violated neutrality.

This is not a localized misconduct issue — it represents a documented breakdown in Berkshire’s compliance system, affecting employee rights across multiple entities, all governed by the same ethical framework.

The original addition was neutrally worded and sourced. Many other Fortune 500 companies include well-documented “Controversies” sections. Why should Berkshire Hathaway be exempt?

Open to refinements and feedback. Faceshank (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

"I have copies of this, and would be happy to privately share it with any editor for verification." This sounds as if you are an 'insider', and have confidential materials not available to the public. That suggests a possible conflict of interest in editing the article. I've reverted your re-addition of the content to the article, as the "sourcing" is completely malformed, and that should never be present in the public article space until fixed - and that assumes the content passes muster. Just a scan through reveals levels of indirection that fall into the original research and synthesis realms, for example the Arthur Grand Technologies entry. Arthur Grand is not a Berkshire subsidiary, they're a vendor, and as a fuller reporting shows, the listing was performed by rogue employee, and Berkshire Hathaway had no involvement in the matter.[1] Before restoring the material again, it's important that you read the links I've provided above. Further - please read about edit warring. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @[[User:Anastrophe]] and @[[User:Panamitsu]],

I’d like to revisit the removal of the recently added Controversies section. The original content was based on publicly available sources and formatted in alignment with similar sections on other major company pages. Here’s a breakdown addressing the concerns raised:

1. Sourcing

All entries were supported by reputable third-party news sources (e.g., DOJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, CBC, CFPB). No original research was used. If there were issues with citation formatting, I’m happy to clean them up — but formatting alone doesn’t justify full deletion.

2. Relevance to Berkshire Hathaway

While some incidents involve subsidiaries or vendors, they are tied directly to Berkshire operations:

• Trident Mortgage and Vanderbilt Mortgage are wholly owned subsidiaries.

• Procor Limited is part of Marmon Holdings, a Berkshire subsidiary, with an active human rights case on record (N2023/01/0634).

• Arthur Grand Technologies posted a discriminatory job ad tied to a Berkshire insurance role, confirmed in the DOJ release.

• All employees in these cases fall under the same Berkshire-wide NAVEX ethics system, mandated by onboarding materials signed by Warren Buffett.

3. Pattern and WP:DUE

These are not one-off, unrelated incidents. They highlight recurring themes of compliance risk, whistleblower retaliation, and vendor oversight. Including them meets the due weight standard given similar content on other Fortune 100 pages.

I’m happy to revise language further to meet neutrality standards. But I’d appreciate a chance for proper Talk page consensus before content is removed again under WP:BRD.

Thanks in advance for your input.

— [[User:Faceshank|Faceshank]] Faceshank (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Faceshank BRD means that you boldly add content, it is reverted, then the matter is discussed. It does not mean that you boldly add content, it is reverted, then you repeatedly restore the content in question. Until discussion has been resolved, the content in question is not restored to the article.

I note also that you did not respond regarding the possible conflict of interest. Please send me a copy of the material you say that you have, via email.

I would appreciate it if you would self-revert, in keeping with BRD. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Anastrophe —

You requested that I send documentation via email, but no email was provided. Could you please clarify how you’d like to receive it?

For transparency: the documents I referenced are not confidential. They are public-facing materials — including the signed Berkshire ethics code that employees acknowledge during onboarding, and publicly available legal filings. I’m happy to share links or upload them here for verification.

I would also like to respectfully raise a concern:

Your tone and language (“I would appreciate it”) suggests personal stake, not neutrality. Policy disputes should be resolved by community consensus, not individual authority. I respectfully ask that you allow others to weigh in rather than reverting based on subjective interpretation.

To reiterate, the content was written in neutral tone and supported by mainstream sources (DOJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, CBC). The relevance to Berkshire Hathaway is clearly established via direct ownership, vendor relationships, and its NAVEX ethics reporting system governed by Berkshire’s internal policy.

Open to revisions or refinements — and looking forward to broader editor input.

Thanks,

— Faceshank Faceshank (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

yes, the tone is neutral and there are links, but for me none of the links works (they all yield "404" or page-not-found errors). Moreover, the descrived controversies seem to be of (sometimes very) small scale, it's never documented that they had echo outside the courtroom, and most appear in the state that someone "alleges" something without there being a representation of what Berkshire (or the subsidiary in question) has answered nor a judicial decision. Even the first one (which is closed and doesn't seem so minor as one problematic job ad or one unhappy fired executive) is a "settlement" not a "judgement" so it would seem to be the proper exercise of neutrality to also summarize the contents of the settlement and if it includes an admission of the alleged actions. In summary, I'm not convinced that these are newsworthy for Berkshire and I think the representation of the "controversies" is incomplete and hence not neutral.--Qcomp (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If you visit my user page, there's a column on the left (usually) beneath 'Help' entitled 'Tools', where you can email a user. However, if the documents are public, then a link to the material will suffice.

Saying "I would appreciate it" is asking you courteously to abide by WP:BRD. While BRD is not a policy, it is a very widely used mechanism for resolving content disputes; you invoked it, so it would be appropriate for you to follow it.

I have reviewed the (actual - found via searches) DOJ press release and settlement agreement regarding Arthur Grand Technologies; nowhere do either state that the job posting by was legitimate - it was not - so the fact that some dipwit decided to try to impugn BH with a fake job listing is irrelevant to this article, full stop.

There is a template for adding references to articles; none of your references are compliant or even functional. As a matter of creating the best Encyclopaedia there is, malformed additions are removed until the citations are added correctly. This is another reason why I would ask you to self revert, then practice creating conformant reference in your sandbox.

Your link to the Trident mortgage case [2] goes to a non-existent page.

Your link to the DOJ regarding Arthur Grand technologies goes to a non-existent page.

Your link to the CFPB [3] goes to a non-existent page.

Your link to Reuters[4] goes to an overview page, not the specific article.

Your link to The DOJ [5] goes to a non-existent page.

The link to the Bloomberg article [6] goes to a non-existent page.

These errors alone are rationale enough for removing the content until it's functional. I ask again: Please self revert. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Anastrophe Thank you for taking the time to engage. A quick note first — the original links had formatting issues, but they’ve now been corrected with direct, working URLs to the official DOJ, CFPB, Reuters, Bloomberg, and CBC sources. Thank you for taking the time to point that out, I apologize for the confusion.

Now, I’d like to respectfully clarify a few points, particularly around the scale and relevance of the included controversies:

1. Trident Mortgage – This resulted in a $20 million federal settlement between Trident (a HomeServices of America subsidiary) and both the U.S. Department of Justice and the CFPB. It involved systemic redlining practices impacting Black and Latino communities, and received wide national coverage. It’s one of the largest redlining cases in recent years.

2. Arthur Grand Technologies – Though a vendor, the racially discriminatory job posting explicitly referenced a role supporting Berkshire Hathaway’s insurance operations. The DOJ and Department of Labor launched a joint investigation, and a formal settlement was issued. The case sparked viral media attention and federal scrutiny of vendor oversight, a real and ongoing corporate governance issue.

3. Vanderbilt Mortgage – This is an active 2025 lawsuit filed by the CFPB, alleging systemic predatory lending practices by a Berkshire subsidiary. The allegations include steering consumers into unaffordable loans and driving financial instability — this is clearly more than an “individual” issue.

4. Environmental Criticism of BHE – A detailed Reuters investigation found that Berkshire Hathaway Energy operates some of the dirtiest coal plants in the U.S., with plans to keep them running through 2049. This drew environmental and public health criticism from national organizations and industry experts — it’s hard to argue this lacks relevance.

5. Brad Mart Case – A whistleblower retaliation case involving a former senior executive. It gained national press coverage (Bloomberg), raised questions about Berkshire’s whistleblower system, and nearly led to Warren Buffett being deposed. Again, this isn’t an isolated complaint — it strikes at corporate culture and internal controls.

6. Procor (Hannah v. Procor Limited) – This currently active human rights case involves allegations of retaliation for reporting concerns through Berkshire’s NAVEX ethics hotline. It implicates leadership at Marmon Holdings, and questions the independence of Berkshire’s internal investigation mechanisms. This matter is formally accepted before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal and includes evidence of ethics reporting system misuse — an issue with direct ties to Berkshire’s compliance infrastructure.

----

In summary:

Each case has national-level exposure, regulatory action, or formal legal process — often all three. The pattern is what matters: ethics hotline failures, retaliation, discrimination, and governance breakdowns across multiple subsidiaries over multiple years. These are highly relevant to Berkshire Hathaway’s public-facing image and internal systems.

I’m open to refinements and collaboration, but dismissing these as trivial or irrelevant isn’t consistent with the scope, sources, or outcomes involved.

Cheers,

[[User:Faceshank|Faceshank]] Faceshank (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I have not referred to any of this as being "trivial" or "irrelevant".

I take it you are unwilling to self-revert until the discussion has resolved per WP:BRD? Per BRD: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, don't restore your bold edit , don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." (emphasis mine) Those steps are also commonly and broadly construed to include discussion with other editors.

None of your references/citations are conformant with WP standards. You should take your content to your sandbox, and experiment with creating valid citations for inclusion in the public encyclopedia.

The cite for Trident only references BH once, as the owner of the subsidiary. There's no claim that BH was at fault. The matter is tangentially related to BH, but that is all, they were not a party to the case or settlement. Suggesting that it is a BH "Controversy" is a reach.

Your entry for Arthur Grand curiously omits anything about the fact that it was a disgruntled employee of Arthur Grand who posted the job listing, there's no evidence that BH solicited that listing or that BH specified that only "white people" should apply, the employee was terminated, and Arthur Grand - again, a vendor, not a BH asset - paid the fine. This is entirely unrelated to BH. Suggesting that it is a BH 'controversy' is synthesis - it was an Arthur Grand controversy. This article spells it out:[7]

CFPB has sued Vanderbilt, not BH; an ongoing suit against a subsidiary isn't particularly 'controversial' considering how common litigation occurs with large corporations.

The Brad Mart matter: From the decision that denied dismal of the overall case:

• "The portion of Berkshire Hathaway's motion to dismiss (DE # 32) that relates to plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim is GRANTED."
• "The portion Berkshire Hathaway's motion to dismiss (DE # 32) that relates to plaintiff's Sarbanes–Oxley Act claim is GRANTED. Because no claims remain against Berkshire Hathaway, it is dismissed from the case."

BH is not a party to the case.

Likewise, Mart's suit against his own counsel was dismissed. The matter isn't directly relevant to BH as a "controversy".

The Reuters environmental investigation and the AHRC are still open, and I've no strong objections to the material, though the latter involves a subsidiary of a subsidiary of BH, and your unformatted reference to "N2023/01/0634 Hannah v. Procor Limited" yields no results that I can find, though I can find Hannah v Tolko, and that case literally makes no mention of BH. Your timeline is also incorrect - your citation is to an article from 2018, while you refer to it as a matter from "(2023–2025)". The matter began in 2018 and hasn't concluded. That needs to be fixed - after you've fixed your citations, reverted the content in the public encyclopedia, and after we have more discussion by other editors, per WP:BRD - again, you invoked it, please conform to it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Followup: I'm unable to find any evidence of any matter between Clayton Hannah and Procor limited. The CBC article only mentions Tolko, a privately owned forestry company with no relationship with Procor or BH. The AHRC site has no cases regarding Hannah v Procor, but they do for Hannah v Tolko. So as it stands, the article contains a completely false allegation against Procor and BH. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that your statement, “the described controversies seem to be of (sometimes very) small scale,” is essentially the same as calling these matters “trivial” or “irrelevant.” This downplays the significance of what are, in fact, well-documented and serious issues. I am getting ready for an afternoon shift and will have to correct you further on these matters afterwards. You seem unusually focused on removing this section, despite the sources and neutrality of the content. It’s curious that you spend so much time volunteering on Wikipedia, especially during business hours. Cheers! - Bobby Bryce Faceshank (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That was user Qcomp, not me.

Your closing comments fall broadly within uncivil behavior. Focus on the edits, not the editor, that's foundational to civility. I'd appreciate if you strike them. Yes, I'm focused on removing the section, because it's in the public encyclopedia, improperly formatted, conflates matters between subsidiaries of BH (and subsidiaries of subsidiaries of BH) as BH controversies, and unless you've some contrary evidence, a flatly false allegation about the company Procor. You've also made claims of broad coverage without providing citations to back them up. And because you invoked WP:BRD, which explicitly says not to repeatedly restored the challenged material, and have not explicitly declaimed whether you have a COI. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that all listed cases (except for the last one) are good additions to this article. They appear well-sourced and important in the context of Berkshire Hathaway as a holding company. Only the last one (CBC article) seems to be too minor to warrant an inclusion here. However, in all cases, the references have to be properly formatted. Vgbyp (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid that most are not appropriate additions, and they aren't adequately sourced. I'll explain why. In order for this to be clearly presented I'll have to do some reformatting to make it readable. But based on policy, most aren't notable to Berkshire Hathaway, and their inclusion is supported only by personal opinion.

Editor Faceshank wrote the following things in his rationale(s) for inclusion:

"All were supported by mainstream news sources and written in neutral language.

and

"All entries were supported by reputable third-party news sources (e.g., DOJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, CBC, CFPB)."

and

"To reiterate, the content was written in neutral tone and supported by mainstream sources (DOJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, CBC)."

No, they were not. Please review WP:RELIABLE.

1. Trident is sourced to a DOJ press release, is the only source provided, and is not a 'mainstream news source'. Press releases are generally not acceptable as sources, though a high-level one such as this can be used in support of reliable secondary sources, such as news sources. For this to be listed as a 'BH controversy', you need to provide mainstream news sources that explicitly characterize it as a BH issue in addition to the DOJ press release. Trident alone was sued, not BH. Trident alone settled with the DOJ, not BH.
2. Arthur Grand Technologies is sourced to a DOJ press release, is the only source provided, and is not a 'mainstream news source'. Same arguments regarding its use the Trident case. Furthermore, this wasn't BH or a subsidiary of BH, it was a third party vendor; the job listing was posted by a disgruntled/rogue vendor employee; it was a fictional listing; BH had no connection or involvement, other than their name being used to give the listing some appearance of legitimacy, apparently. Arthur Grand was sued, not BH; Arthur Grand agreed to a settlement, not BH. [8].
3. Vanderbilt is sourced to a CFPB press release, is the only source provided, and is not a 'mainstream news source'. Same caveats regarding its use as a source as the Trident case. For this to be listed as a 'BH controversy', you need to provide mainstream news sources that explicitly characterize it as a BH issue in addition to the DOJ press release. Vanderbilt alone was sued, not BH.
4. Reuters environmental report is an investigative journalism report, is a reliable mainstream news source, and definitely meets the requirements to be characterized as a BH controversy, because the article explicitly discusses it as a BH issue.
5. Brad Mart. This uses a reliable secondary source, but is grossly incomplete, only describing the state of the matter shortly after it first came to light, and excludes later developments, that show that the court tossed the claims against BH - therefore, it's not a BH controversy, absent reliable secondary sources that maintain it was a BH controversy even after those claims were dropped.
6. Alberta Human Rights Commission. A mention of a "citation N2023/01/0634 Hannah v Procor Limited" is tendered, though I've only been able to find a case at the AHRC site of Hannah v Tolko. Tolko is a private company, with no association to BH. As well, court documents are primary sources - they can only be used in very limited cases, and only with supporting secondary sources that characterize the matter. The link to the CBC article describes the matter as being between Hannah and Tolko, not Hannah and Procor, therefore there's no reliable secondary sourcing either. This really needs to be expunged ASAP, as the sourcing and the claims regarding them show no evidence of any connection to BH.

Further claims by editor Faceshank:

"These are documented legal and ethical matters,"

and

"They highlight recurring themes of compliance risk, whistleblower retaliation, and vendor oversight."

and

"[...]it represents a documented breakdown in Berkshire’s compliance system, affecting employee rights across multiple entities, all governed by the same ethical framework."

and

"The pattern is what matters: ethics hotline failures, retaliation, discrimination, and governance breakdowns across multiple subsidiaries over multiple years."

According to what reliable secondary sources? This appears to be a personal opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. But we need mainstream news sources that make those claims, and specific to BH.

Similar content appears on pages for other large corporations"

and

Many other Fortune 500 companies include well-documented “Controversies” sections

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. That's not a justification alone for inclusion.

Based upon the multiple problems, these are the remedies as I see them:

1. Trident - remove pending addition of reliable secondary sourcing, a prerequisite for inclusion, and needs properly constructed citations; see WP:CITE.
2. Arthur Grand - no reasonable rationale to include this; it had nothing material to do with BH.
3. Vanderbilt - remove pending addition of reliable secondary sourcing, a prerequisite for inclusion, and needs properly constructed citations.
4. Reuters environmental report - qualifies as a BH controversy, however, remove pending properly constructed citations.
5. Brad Mart - needs additional citations that don't exclude the further developments in the case(s) after it came to light. Leaving that information out would fail WP:NPOV. Remove pending properly constructed citations.
6. Alberta Human Rights Commission - based upon available citations and claims, this has absolutely nothing to do with BH. Unless this is clarified (with proper sourcing), this must be removed.

If reliable secondary sources are added that characterize any of these matters as being specific controversies, problems, issues with BH itself rather than the subsidiaries, I'll have no objection to their inclusion. If there are no responses from involved editors specific to what I've written, or the material stays in the public article space without any changes, I guess I'll engage more formal remedies. As presented, the inclusion of the allegations is absent any sourcing coming to the conclusions implied, and the construction of what sources there are (citations) are a mess and not consistent with the article as a whole or wikipedia standards.

A helpful tip: Adding sources is made "easy" (depending on your definition) with tools in the wikipedia editor. When you open the editor, in the top bar where you can select bolding, italics etc, to the right of those it says ">Advanced >Special characters >Help >Cite" When you click 'Cite', you'll then see below and to the left "Templates". Click and there's a dropdown to cite web, news, book, or journal. In most cases, even with news sources, "web" is the right template to use. Fill in the details in the dialogue box tht pops up, preview it to see if it's right, then preview the page to see if any errors are shown in the reference section.

You can paste your text into a your sandbox, and edit it and the citations directly there before pushing it into the public encyclopedia.

Yes, I realize this is very long. I think that detail and clarity is necessary. I've no objections to legitimate 'controversies' related directly to BH be present in the Berkshire Hathaway wikipedia article. Most of these (with acceptable sourcing) would be more appropriate to the WP pages for the subsidiaries themselves. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Even though DoJ press releases might not be good sources for establishing notability, they are definitely RS. DoJ press releases aren't the same as news websites' press releases. Many high-profile articles use DoJ press releases as sources. Anyway, Trident and Vanderbilt are easy to find mainstream news sources for:

Trident:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/27/warren-buffett-trident-berkshire-hathaway-redlining

https://www.bankingdive.com/news/doj-cfpb-20-million-settlement-trident-philadelphia-redlining/628356/

Vanderbilt:

https://fortune.com/2025/01/06/berkshire-hathaway-lender-sued-cfpb-unaffordable-loans-mortgages/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-regulator-sues-berkshire-unit-over-risky-home-loans-2025-01-06/

For Arthur Grand, Brad Mart, and Alberta Human Rights Commission, I now agree with you and support removal. Vgbyp (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)