Facebook Investors Ask Delaware Court for Access to Ad Revenue, Executive 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 AllElon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Delaware
5 minute readCompanies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Discusses Teaching Tech to Juries
Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
Trending Stories
- 1Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 2Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
- 33rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
- 4Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
- 5Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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