ShareThis Page

Newspaper fight awaits judge's call

| Monday, Oct. 28, 2013, 8:42 p.m.

PHILADELPHIA — Feuding owners fought over control of The Philadelphia Inquirer on Monday before a city judge who must decide whether the dispute belongs in her court or in Delaware, where the partners incorporated last year.

If she keeps the case, Judge Patricia McInerney must determine the fate of Publisher Bob Hall and Editor Bill Marimow. Their jobs are in limbo; dueling lawsuits have been filed in recent weeks by the rival owners.

Powerful New Jersey Democrat and insurance magnate George Norcross backs Hall, who recently fired Marimow.

Business tycoons Lewis Katz and H.F. “Gerry” Lenfest support Marimow, a Pulitzer Prize-winner known more for investigative journalism than digital innovation. Katz and Lenfest insist that Hall abused his authority and that his contract had expired in August.

McInerney did not say when she would rule but met privately with Norcross and Katz for more than 30 minutes after a phalanx of high-priced lawyers argued the issues in public.

The newspaper company — which also publishes the Philadelphia Daily News and — has changed hands five times in seven years, a period that included a bitter bankruptcy fight, a public auction and a precipitous price drop from $515 million to $55 million last year.

Katz, the former owner of the New Jersey Nets, kicked in $16 million for a 26 percent stake, but he complained in his lawsuit that he was not consulted about Marimow's firing. He and Norcross make up the two-person management committee charged with steering the company. But it's not clear what happens if they disagree, with no third party to break the tie.

Norcross' precise stake is not clear, but he and three low-profile partners together hold 58 percent of the shares, compared with 42 percent for Katz and Lenfest, according to his countersuit, which seeks to keep the case in Delaware. His lawyer argued that the law states the case should be tried in the state where a company incorporated, absent some “compelling reason.”

“You don't think it's compelling that it's The Philadelphia Inquirer, and this is Philadelphia? And the citizens of Philadelphia could come into the courtroom and listen to the proceedings?” McInerney asked.

She did not rule from the bench on Monday and took the issues under advisement.

Katz declined to comment after the hearing, which Lenfest, Hall and Marimow attended at City Hall. Norcross, in brief remarks, said he hoped the dispute would not detract from the company's mission.

“Our goal from the beginning, (when) we acquired this enterprise, was to make it better for the readership, and better for the region,” he said. “We continue to be hopeful.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.