The Guardian
topics
Close Box

News From Us:

Our latest report; our new video section; and jobs with paidContent.org and paidContent:UK


Spot Runner: ‘Sophisticated Investor’ WPP Was Given Opportunities To Sell Shares

Web-based TV ad agency Spot Runner has tried to reassure staffers over the weekend with a memo that could offer a clue as to how it plans to fight WPP Group’s $13 million lawsuit accusing the company of securities fraud and breach of contract. WPP, which holds a 3 percent stake in the company, is suing because it was not informed of the sale of Spot Runner shares between Feb. 2006 and March 2008.

The UK ad holding company, which initially bought $10 million worth of shares in Spot Runner as part of its third found back in Aug. 2006, says that if it had known about the earlier share sale, it would never have made an investment. WPP also says that the defendants—it specifically accuses Spot Runner CEO Nick Grouf, co-founder David Waxman and general counsel Peter Huie; as well as investors Bob Pittman, Index Ventures’ Danny Rimer Battery Ventures’ Roger Lee. The company also alleges that it was defrauded and deceived on additional sales, though it was given the opportunity to sell shares in May 2007 and March 2008—but was not informed of a plan to sell shares in Jan. 2008.

In its unsigned memo to employees, obtained by paidContent, Spot Runner identifies WPP as a “sophisticated investor” and that it had “signed various documents acknowledging” the opportunity to sell shares over the past two years. Ultimately, Spot Runner tells staffers that the legal issues should have no impact on its day-to-day operations. The full memo appears after the jump.

Team,
As you may have heard, WPP, a minority shareholder (less than 3%) in Spot Runner since 2006, filed a lawsuit against the company and its board members primarily related to the sale of Spot Runner stock and Spot Runner’s communications with WPP.  This situation is unfortunate, as we appreciate and value the relationships we have with all of our investors and we had hoped for a long and supportive relationship with WPP.  We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend against them, including taking all necessary legal action to protect Spot Runner’s reputation.
We feel strongly that WPP’s complaint contains many baseless accusations and want to give you a broader perspective on the matter.  This lawsuit is unrelated to our products and services – it is centered on legal agreements entered into with WPP, a sophisticated investor, regarding the way that shareholder stock sales were handled.  WPP alleges that Spot Runner’s board members failed to disclose to WPP the stock sales by shareholders, allegedly in violation of the board’s obligations to stockholders, among other things.
We are confident that Spot Runner complied with all of its obligations under the various shareholder agreements. When these sales occurred, there was overwhelming demand for Spot Runner stock and the company did not want to dilute existing shareholders by issuing new shares. Therefore, the founders (in 2006) and the board members and other preferred shareholders (in 2007 and early 2008) agreed to make room for important, new investors and respond to their desire to invest in Spot Runner by selling their own shares. In 2007 and 2008, WPP and other preferred shareholders were given notice that the sales were occurring, and they had the opportunity to participate in the sales. In fact, WPP signed various documents acknowledging this opportunity.
Spot Runner and all of its employees conduct business with the utmost integrity. Our team, technologies, and products and services are core assets of which we can all be proud.  It is because of your hard work that we have come this far.  To that end, we continue to drive hard toward successfully launching Project Malibu and realizing its full potential.  You also should know that our board members remain majority shareholders in Spot Runner – a concrete sign of their commitment to and confidence in the business.
Our outside counsel will work with the board and management team to develop a formal reply, which ultimately will be filed with the court.  These legal proceedings should not affect our day-to-day operations.
We are grateful that we can count on you to remain focused on serving our clients and partners to the best of your abilities.
Thank you again for all that you do for Spot Runner.

Related Stories
Apr 20, 2009 8:56 AM ET
Share

Posted In: Advertising, Legal

  • Avi Tarr

    If Spot Runner goes down in flames (as it appears it will), the market is then only served by the remaining players:  Google TV which is in Beta, template ad-maker Spotzer (which seems to have moved away from local TV ads to online media), and the dotcom CheapTVSpots which remains the most award-winning discount TV ad agency in the world.  Google TV may have more trouble in this space than it's worth, given to the low traditional profit margins of the industry and the tiny budgets that clients for this type of service usually are beset with.  Clients do not like to bid up against each other for TV air time.  That's one of the problems that Spot Runner may have had…high additional media costs, and that's going to be the problem for TV ads from Google.  Clients are not stupid.  They eventually figure out where they're getting shorted, and flee for greener pastures.

  • jenkins

    The Spotrunner investors might want to take a very hard look at expense reports handed in by their founders. If these guys really are crooks their expense reports could be the perfect place to look.

  • stonerry

    This is total spin. Which investors did Spotrunner need to have into the round so badly? Having founders and board members sell stock in an early stage company is complete and utter nonsense and tells me that they lacked confidence in the future. This is actually sounding more and more like a scheme to me if all the facts in the complaint are true. I feel really bad for the poor investors that bought stock in this company.

  • jenkins

    Their CEO has to resign. He is disgraced and can't possibly withstand this attack on his integrity if all is true in the complaint.

The Economics of Content | paidContent Newsletter

Know something we don’t?

Send Us a News Tip

All tips are anonymous and untraced.

Sponsors

Contributors