LVMH submitted to the Chancery Court of Delaware last night its conclusions, seeking that the Court dismiss Tiffany’s request to issue a decision within a short timeframe that would be incompatible with a dispassionate ruling.
There are no objective reasons why the upcoming trial should not take place within a normal timeframe.
By asking the courts to rule urgently – and by communicating feverishly and hastily – Tiffany’s executives are clearly seeking to avoid having to answer, notably to their shareholders, for their bad results and mismanagement and to see their arguments fall one after the other.
Indeed, they know full well, on the one hand, that the authorizations of the competition authorities will be obtained significantly before November 24, so their grievances against LVMH on this issue are groundless and, on the other hand, that the next Tiffany results will only confirm the occurrence of a “material adverse effect” and the mediocrity of their management during the crisis, which mainly consisted in creating losses and increasing debts to the detriment of the company’s interest.
In this respect, the assertions by Tiffany’s current management that “the 4th quarter 2020 profits will be higher than those of the previous year” are purely fanciful, even worrying. The only way to even come close to this target would be to strongly curtail all current investments, particularly in marketing and communications, which is obviously detrimental to the future of the brand and totally contrary to the normal course of business.
There is no reason for this case to be judged urgently. Given the legal and financial issues at stake – in the context of a pandemic that obviously weighs on the ability of a European group to organize its defense in the United States – it seems to LVMH that sound justice requires that a reasonable time be granted to rule on the matter.
Tiffany clearly fears a serene and fair rendering of justice. LVMH, for its part, has full confidence in the American justice system to demonstrate that the conditions necessary for the acquisition of Tiffany are no longer met and that the fallacious arguments put forward by Tiffany are unfounded.
It is up to the Delaware Court to determine who is in his right, and not the Chairman of Tiffany through the press.
