Barnes & Noble Must Front Half of Legal Fees Expected to Be Incurred in CEO's Challenge to Ouster
The ex-CEO pointed to New York state law and his employment contract, which he argued indemnified him. Barnes & Noble, however, balked.
May 07, 2019 at 05:59 PM
4 minute read
Retail giant Barnes & Noble has been ordered to front 50% of the legal fees that are expected to arise out of the lawsuit the company's former CEO filed after he was ousted in July 2018.
The company's ex-CEO, Demos Parneros, sued Barnes & Noble after he was terminated over allegations that he had sexually harassed a female employee, bullied and belittled subordinates and undermined a potential change in control.
The company had filed crossclaims against Parneros last fall, and it is because of these counterclaims that Parneros sought an advancement on the attorney fees he expects to spend defending himself.
In an order docketed by the court Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York granted Parneros' motion for advanced fees, which had sought 50% of anticipated attorney fees and expenses in the case. The one-page order also said that fees for time spent before the crossclaims were filed should not be advanced.
The total number of dollars expected to be spent on Parneros' behalf in the case was undetermined.
In arguing for the advanced fees, the ex-CEO pointed to New York state law and his employment contract, which he argued indemnified him. Barnes & Noble, however, balked, arguing the contract only allowed for indemnification against claims brought against him in his official capacity, and that many of the counterclaims overlap with the claims Parneros is raising.
“Plaintiff is asking Barnes & Noble to subsidize his defense of direct claims asserted by the company for his own misconduct—a result that was not contemplated by the indemnification statutes, which were enacted to protect directors and officers from the costs of defending third party and derivative claims, not to immunize them from the consequences of their misdeeds towards the company itself,” the company said in a February filing.
Koeltl ultimately disagreed.
In August, Parneros sued the New York-based retail giant, claiming the company issued a press release that falsely stated he had violated company policy. He also claimed Barnes & Noble did so in language and in a manner that it “knew full well was false but would be read as reporting that Parneros had engaged in serious sexual misconduct.” His lawsuit cited the various media reports speculating on a potential sexual harassment scandal.
The company responded several weeks later, making clear that the alleged sexual misconduct allegations were a reason for the termination. The company cited two separate occasions, one in which Parneros allegedly inappropriately touched a female subordinate and another when he allegedly made an advance and used sexual language.
In his lawsuit, Parneros described the alleged incident of sexual harassment involving an executive assistant as “simply an innocuous, less than five-minute conversation about vacationing in Quebec.” His lawsuit said that “any issue with that executive assistant had been positively resolved.” His initial complaint also said the accusations of improper conduct were made against a backdrop of a company where top leadership “frequently engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct.”
Barnes & Noble's response also claimed the former CEO “mistreated and bullied members of the executive team, including one of his direct reports, an officer of the company.” The final reason for termination, the company claims, was that Parneros attempted to sabotage the acquisition of a book retailer “in an effort to preserve his position as CEO and contrary to the board's clear directive, an inexcusable breach of the fiduciary duties that any CEO owes the company that employs him.”
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison attorney Jay Cohen, who is representing Barnes & Noble, and Debra Raskin, of Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, who is representing Parneros, each did not return a call for comment left late Tuesday afternoon.
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 AllWalmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
3 minute readNY Federal Judge Rules Online-Only Retailers Cannot Face ADA Claims
Morrison Cohen Debuts Luxury Brands Practice as Retailers Navigate Post-Pandemic Landscape
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Luigi Mangione's Attorney Gives a Master Class in How Not to Handle a High-Profile Case in the Media
- 2Trump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
- 3Trump, ABC News Settle Defamation Lawsuit Before Depositions
- 4Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 5The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
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