WPP pays libel bill
When Sir Martin Sorrell against his former Italian colleagues, Marco Benatti and Marco Tinelli, it was widely expected that he would share the costs of the case with his company, .
That seemed reasonable, in that the vicious 鈥淒on Martino鈥 blogs which irked Sir Martin were damaging both to him in a personal capacity and to his world-leading advertising business.
If anything, the allocation of costs should perhaps have been weighted slightly towards Sir Martin rather than the company, in that his determination to bring the court action probably gave rather more publicity to the noxious allegations than would otherwise have happened. Certainly I would never have noticed the absurd and malicious claims against him if he hadn't sued.
However, I have learned that WPP鈥檚 board has decided to pay the entire costs of the libel action 鈥 which run to 拢2 1/2m, a bit more than anticipated by most commentators.
The board didn鈥檛 make the decision lightly. The question of how to divide costs was assessed by its audit committee, advice was taken from the leading firm of solicitors, and there was a lively debate among directors.
But in the end, at a board meeting on May 10, the directors determined that WPP鈥檚 shareholders should pay. That will be disclosed in the coming few weeks, before the company鈥檚 annual meeting. I am intrigued by whether WPP鈥檚 owners will be happy that they are picking up the tab.
UPDATE: Here鈥檚 an odd thing.
A WPP spokesman tells me that 拢800,000 will be shown in the company鈥檚 accounts as the cost of picking up Martin Sorrell鈥檚 legal bill and that a further 拢200,000 has been spent on the bill of his fellow plaintiff, Daniela Weber, the chief operating officer of WPP Italy.
Which is all a bit odd, since the non-executive directors were given a paper earlier this month showing that the total cost of the case to WPP was 拢2 1/2m. I am at a loss to explain the significant disparity, as is everyone else to whom I have spoken for guidance.
I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
If Martin Sorrell's ego is so sensitive that he undertakes rediculously excessive and expensive legal action he should pick up the entire tab. If there was any chance of shareholders paying they should have been consulted before the event.
Although not in possession of the full facts, (I only know what I have read in the press!!!) it does seem to me a generous decision by the Board to support Martin Sorrell by paying the expenses of this action.To me they seemed a personal expense for Martin to settle himself. Had I been a shareholder I would have felt pretty angry perhaps cheated and would have made my feelings known to the Board and to whoever else would listen.
As a shareholder in WPP, I am outraged that the cost of a personal vendetta between these two men, and the ill advised decision of Martin Sorrell to sue, should be borne by the shareholders. It seems that the chief executive and the board need some lessons in distinguishing personal money from company money. This is a regrettably common occurence in public companies.
I would suggest the shareholders to sue Sir Martin and WPP, since there seem to be no basis for WPP to foot the bill for what seems to be a purely personal legal battle undertaken by Sir Martin.
Unfortunately, too many CEO/Chairmen consider their listed companies as their own property these days, and this is not going to change anytime soon as the majority shareholders are financial institutions with close ties to these people.
As a share holder plus a empolyee of a wpp company, this is totally wrong. WPP sanctions all pay rises (one rise every four years if your lucky) so it's one rule for them and a differnt rule for us.