Contingencies |
Note 13Contingencies
Intermix
On August 26, 2005 and August 30, 2005, two purported class action lawsuits captioned, respectively, Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt et. al., and John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al., were filed in the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles. Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then incumbent members of the Intermix Board, including Mr. Rosenblatt, Intermix's former Chief Executive Officer, and certain entities affiliated with VantagePoint Venture Partners ("VantagePoint"), a former major Intermix stockholder. The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction whereby Intermix was to be acquired by Fox Interactive Media, a subsidiary of the Company (the "FIM Transaction") and approving the related merger agreement, the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Intermix stockholders by, among other things, engaging in self-dealing and failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for Intermix and its stockholders. The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored the terms of the merger to advance their own interests. The FIM Transaction was consummated on September 30, 2005. The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently consolidated and, on January 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed (the "Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation"). The plaintiffs in the consolidated action sought various forms of declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs. On March 20, 2006, the court ordered that substantially identical claims asserted in a separate state action filed by Brad Greenspan, captioned Greenspan v. Intermix Media, Inc., et al., be severed and related to the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation. The defendants filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all claims in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation and the severed Greenspan claims. On October 6, 2006, the court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. On December 13, 2006, the court dismissed the complaints and entered judgment for the defendants. Greenspan and plaintiffs in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation filed notices of appeal. The Court of Appeal heard arguments on the fully briefed appeal on October 23, 2008. On November 11, 2008, the Court of Appeal issued an unpublished opinion affirming the lower court's dismissal on all counts. On December 19, 2008, shareholder appellants filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court. After the lower court sustained the demurrers in the Intermix MediaShareholder Litigation, co-counsel for certain of the plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys' fees and costs under a common law substantial benefit theory. On October 4, 2007, the court granted the motion and denied defendants' application to tax costs. After defendants filed a notice of appeal, the matter was resolved.
In November 2005, plaintiff in a derivative action captioned LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al. pending against various former Intermix directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California filed a First Amen |