Saturday November 21, 2009
Share ...
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Live
  • Digg
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • RSS

Diller v. Malone: IAC Fends Off Shareholder Advances in Court

In a filing with the Delaware Chancery Court yesterday, IAC/InterActiveCorp. asked that legal action by shareholder Liberty Media be dismissed, arguing that its attempt to remove chairman and CEO Barry Diller and other board directors could “cripple” the company and threaten its quarterly earnings report.

In a filingwith the Delaware Chancery Court yesterday, IAC/InterActiveCorp. asked thatlegal action by shareholder Liberty Media be dismissed, arguing that itsattempt to remove chairman and CEO Barry Diller and other board directors could”cripple” the company and threaten its quarterly earnings report.

IAC accused Liberty of trying tocreate “management and market chaos” to disrupt its operations.

According tovarious press reports, the IAC move is the latest in an increasingly bitter showdownbetween the company and longtime investor Liberty,controlled by chairman John Malone. He and Liberty CEO Greg Maffei have beenunhappy with IAC’s stock price and in recent months have talked with Dillerabout possibly restructuring the company or Liberty’s stake in it.

A DelawareChancery judge is expected to hear a motion today from Liberty, which owns a62 percent voting stake in IAC, that would prevent the IAC board from taking anyactions outside the course of ordinary business while the court decides on anumber of other measures, including whether Liberty can lawfully replace Dillerand other board members, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Among otherthings, the two sides had looked at swapping part of Liberty’s stake for Home Shopping Network (HSN)or other IAC assets.

Liberty cited concerns that a planned split ofIAC into five companies and a proposed new share structure for the corebusiness would dilute its say in company affairs.

John Coffee, director of the Center on corporate governance at Columbia LawSchool, says Liberty has “a steeply uphill battle” in trying to provethat Diller violated his agreement by expressing his intention to vote in favorof a spinout. “My view is that the defendants have a strong argument thatthe proxy hasn’t been violated, because no vote has been taken,” Coffee toldthe Journal.

Leave a Reply