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
© 2025 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 AllZoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
3 minute readEtsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
3rd Circ Orders SEC to Explain ‘How and When the Federal Securities Laws Apply to Digital Assets’
5 minute readElon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Delaware
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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