DISQUS

zauber · 7 months ago

You mean a CEO should inform investors of selling shares and securing his personal financial well-being? Wouldn't that make it harder to garner more capital from unsuspecting new investors?

rkorba · 7 months ago

it would be *very* odd (imo) for a private round not to include standard terms for "drag along" and "first right of refusal" for any existing investors to be able to sell if any holder sells or plans to at a given price.

Pumpkin Labs · 7 months ago

this has got to be a case of a disgruntled investor. why should wpp care of insider sales within a private company?

Matt Marshall · 7 months ago

Don't know the answer here, but just updated by embedding the complaint.

Facebook User · 7 months ago

If what WPP claims is true these boys are in big trouble. That being said I can't imagine investors the caliber of Battery and Index being involved. Whatever the truth turns out to be, looks like a bunch of lawyers are going to make a lot of money.

Gruffer · 7 months ago

This is sooo wrong but its not the first time snake oil salesmen have fleeced the unsuspecting. Don't be surprised when the other later stage investors jump on this bandwagon----my bet: the money is given back to the company---but its gonna be a long trial.

The idea of founders taking early money out is likely gonna get terminated---and it should.

Salad Annie · 7 months ago

J.M. Tanzer et al may certainly uncover a lot of dirt in this case if he digs deep enough. It will be interesting to see how the revelations of how the venture community may unjustly profit will affect the future of technology finance.

Here's some info lost and now resurrected. It's Wikipedia's warning to Spot Runner to knock off the surreptitious whitewashing of their negative information from the wiki. This is what Ponzis do, too. They build up their positive press. Suppress the negative press. Then sell shares at inflated rates. Just speculation, but If fully investigated, there could probably be found a long list of independent bloggers, consultants, technology sites, and reporters at Business Week, CNN Money and more that were on Spot Runner's, Index or Battery's payroll. That influence was very likely used to pump up the perception that the company had a future - which it most likely did not, according to some employees.

The Malibu Project will likely turn out to be a smoke screen, in effort to make Spot Runner look like it had a technology component. Let me tell you that NO agencies or TV networks would ever be interested in this product for long. There would just be no use for it - if it did exist. Malibu in my opinion is simply a pitch tool for attracting additional (gullible) investors. This may be more evidence of the strategies ultiized by this house of cards. Be warned: Most other endeavors in TV advertising that are venture funded will likely have the same dubious foundations. TV advertising is already very efficient, but is a traditionally low profit business. If it's made to appear to be high-profit (to attract investors), then someone is probably getting screwed - the investors or the clients.

Here's the Wikipedia to Spot Runner warning:

Talk:Spot Runner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 3/20/09 1:29 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spot_Runner
Talk:Spot Runner This page was last modified on 19 March 2009, at 01:17.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"@Spot, your changes are welcome but you can't just come in and rewrite the entire page based on your whim, especially when removing a bunch of negative information and adding only positive. It makes it seem like astroturfing is being done by someone at the company, which hopefully is not your intent. Please propose and discuss any sweeping changes here prior to making them. We're open to corrections in the article but we need to do it in a controlled manner. I have tried to integrate the spirit of your major changes in good faith, so hopefully we have a common ground to start discussion for any further modifications.

Please also remember as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONFLICT it is important to declare if you are an employee or have a vested interest in an article you are editing. In reviewing your edit it really does read as marketing material.

It is important because if it does turn out that you are an employee, shareholder, etc. it can create very negative press for both Wikipedia and Spot Runner..."

###

A.R. · 7 months ago

WPP knows it has nothing to fear from Spot Runner's advertising model. SR no longer has a creative team making ads (all laid off) and has lost most of it's stock-footage license rights. In other words, you can't really get an ad from Spot Runner to run on TV. My guess is that Nick and David were trying to cash in before the gig is up. They are now trying to finish an advertising dashboard, "Malibu", but if none of the WPP co's are going to use it...?

Istan Boole · 7 months ago

Next up for scrutiny: Google's Restraint of Trade issues concerning its foundering TV ads division. I think it will be a revelation to the stockholders that the only way to make TV ads a profitable venture (in the eyes of the Silicon Valley crowd and to Wall Street), is to step on State, Federal and International law. My guess is that Google's loss will dwarf that of Spot Runner's $111 Million USD. When it's done, hopefully, there will be more government watchdogs and more responsible press in place to alert to these alleged abuses of the public confidence before these slicksters get too far. Can anyone provide additional details of the secret deals Google is making with TV networks, specifically those aspects of the deals that prevent other media buyers from buying the same media? That info would be really helpful to a first year law student studying both Goog's misadventures and those of Spot Runner.

Brody Beckham · 7 months ago

According to this, WPP is fighting for $13 million. Sounds like a small amount of money for one of the big four. I know WPP is hurting the most, but that borders on desperation. Also, if I'm reading this correctly, WPP had the right of first refusal, which means they would have known what was going on. It will be interesting to see Spot Runner's legal reply.

Haggie · 7 months ago

My first question is: Who were the suckers that bought these pumped up shares? Expect their lawsuit in 4...3...2...1...

augusto apracino · 7 months ago

This has all the hallmarks of a ponzi scheme.