Facebook Investors Ask Court for Access to Ad Revenue and Execs' Pay Records
The books-and-records suit, filed March 22 by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Boston Retirement System, cited a steep decline in Facebook's market value after the company said last July that it expected to see a slowdown in revenue growth.
March 25, 2019 at 03:12 PM
4 minute read
Two institutional investors have hit Facebook with a Chancery Court lawsuit seeking corporate documents related to advertising revenues and executive pay, saying that an earlier attempt to obtain the information was largely rebuffed.
The books-and-records suit, filed March 22 by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Boston Retirement System, cited a steep decline in Facebook's market value after the company said last July that it expected to see a slowdown in revenue growth.
According to the complaint, Facebook relies on ad sales to generate “substantially all” of its revenue. However, the filing alleged that between 2014 and 2017 the company had “vastly overestimated” user engagement with video ads and made other errors, which led major advertisers to significantly cut their spending on the social-media platform.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs said, Facebook's regulatory filings made no mention of whether the board considered those errors in approving pay packages for the company's executives, who reaped “hundreds of millions of dollars” in compensation during that time. The complaint said board minutes and other high-level communications were needed for stockholders to weigh in on Facebook's pay practices and to vote on a slate of directors at the company's annual meeting later this Spring.
“The proxy disclosures appear to evidence that executives were credited with advertising growth in the compensation determinations,” plaintiffs' attorneys from Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith wrote in the filing. “Facebook's senior executives knew or should have known the facts concerning Facebook's raw data and expectations regarding revenue growth, as ads were sold and compensation determinations were made with ad revenue as a factor.”
SEPTA, the Philadelphia area mass transit agency, and Boston Retirement System said that they had contacted Facebook in August, demanding that the company produce board-level materials. According to the complaint, however, Facebook provided just nine “highly-redacted” documents, which did not address address pay decision or the company's advertising issues.
The crux of the filing was a one-day decline of $119 billion in Facebook's market value, after Facebook reported a substantial “deceleration” in its revenue rate.
Since 2016, the complaint said, Facebook had reported a “growing number of errors” related to its advertising data, including problems with a key metric that skewed information that was given to marketers. According to the filing, the company for two years had overstated the amount of time users spent watching ad videos by as much as 60 to 80 percent.
In response, ad buyers filed class action lawsuits in California and Arkansas, claiming that they had overpaid Facebook based on the information the company provided. Last March, major advertisers Proctor & Gamble, Subway and a global beverage company cut back their ad spending by 20 to 50 percent as a result of the revelations.
Facebook's press office did not immediately respond Monday to an email seeking comment on the lawsuit, and an attorney for the plaintiffs was not immediately available to comment.
Investors will be asked in the coming months to pass of a non-binding vote in favor of Facebook's executive compensation plans. The “say on pay” vote, scheduled to take place at Facebook's annual meeting in May or June, is expected to coincide with director elections, the complaint said.
SEPTA and the Boston Retirement System are represented by Robert J. Kriner Jr., Scott M. Tucker, Tiffany J. Cramer and Vera G. Belger of Chimicles in Wilmington.
An online docket-tracking service did not list counsel for Facebook on Monday.
The case is captioned Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Facebook.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Photronics GC Placed on Leave in June Departs—With Company Paying an Extra Year of Salary
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Co-Counsel File 9th Circuit Appeal in Lawsuit Targeting GitHub's Use of Code to Train AI Models
GCs Face Peril as Foreign Bribery Probes Second-Guess 'Routine' Advice
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250