Katz accuses Norcross of 'innuendos and lies' in Inquirer battle

Inquirer co-owner Lewis Katz says his rival business partner George E. Norcross III is mounting a public-relations campaign of "innuendos and lies" to help wrest control of the newspaper and its parent company.

In his first extensive interview since the owners launched separate legal battles to end their partnership and sell off the company, Katz renewed his contention that Norcross was determined to reshape the Inquirer newsroom and influence its coverage.

"It's very plain what he's doing and what he wants to do with the newspaper," Katz said Thursday. "That's why we're here. He can't control me, and he won't control me. I'll let him run his PR campaign, and we'll allow the lawyers to decide the best way to approach the legal issues."

Katz spoke in response to an e-mail disclosed this week in which Norcross implored Katz to agree to a quick private auction of parent company Interstate General Media. The Jan. 29 e-mail was included in a filing this week to a Delaware judge and was later sent to the staffs of The Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News, and Philly.com.

Katz was skeptical, noting that Norcross asked for a reply within two days.

"It was probably written by his lawyer, based on his writing style that I've come to know," Katz said. "I think it was a public-relations ploy. Requiring me to answer in two days? I saw the two days and the language as probably being something they would use to try to influence the court through his public-relations campaign."

Norcross' lead attorney, Robert Heim, said he did not write the letter.

Both sides agree that the bitter disputes between Katz and Norcross, the two managing directors of IGM, have plunged the company into near-corporate paralysis.

Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons of the Delaware Court of Chancery is weighing each side's plan to dissolve the company and auction off its assets. Katz and fellow owner H.F. "Gerry" Lenfest want a public auction. Norcross and co-owners William P. Hankowsky and Joseph Buckelew request a private auction limited to current owners.

Parsons said Friday that he would hold a conference call Tuesday with attorneys and that there could be a hearing on the issue in the next seven weeks. The men were among six who together paid about $55 million for the company in 2012.

Norcross' letter said the next owners would need to hire or replace four top executives in the company, including the publisher and the editor of The Inquirer.

Norcross backed publisher Robert J. Hall's firing in the fall of Inquirer editor William K. Marimow, the act that brought to light the owners' feud. A Philadelphia judge reinstated Marimow, and Katz and Lenfest have asked the Delaware judge to allow him to remain in his job past April 30, when his contract expires.

Asked for examples of innuendos or lies by Norcross, Katz pointed to his treatment of Marimow.

"That's what this is about. He wants to control the newsroom," Katz said. "Do you think he fired Bill because he's a bad editor, or because Bill wouldn't let him control the newsroom?"

A lawyer for Marimow, William Chadwick, cited a September 2012 e-mail from Bob Cauthorn, IGM's chief digital strategist, whom Norcross hired. The e-mail, addressed to Marimow and copied to Norcross, begins: "George just called with a couple of directives for me, and I believe most of this was communicated to you as well." It also said: "George wants me to take charge of the Inquirer.com and Phillydailynews.com projects - overall strategy and design/execution etc."

Chadwick also cited a January 2013 lunch at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown hotel in which Norcross gave Marimow research data supporting his desire to scale back or eliminate columnists and opinion and editorial pages from The Inquirer. According to Chadwick, "Bill disagreed with those strategies, and then Norcross turned his attention to terminating Bill."

Norcross' spokesman, Dan Fee, noted that it was Hall who fired Marimow, and called the claims of newsroom meddling by Norcross "silly and disproven allegations."

"Bill Marimow has been fired at least three times before - well before George Norcross had anything to do with The Inquirer," Fee said. "Presumably, those outlets didn't fire him for any other reason besides performance, the same reason he was dismissed here."

Asked Friday about Fee's assertion of disproven allegations, Marimow responded via e-mail: "What happened at the Marriott on that Sunday in January 2013 is not an allegation. It's the truth. I'll testify to that under oath. In my opinion, my refusal that day to decimate the editorial pages and convert the columnists to reporters lit the fire that led to my dismissal nine months later."

The Norcross side has leveled the same kind of claims about Katz, citing the role of his longtime companion, Inquirer city editor Nancy Phillips, as a sign of his newsroom influence.

In a hearing in the fall before a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge, Phillips testified that she had discussed hiring Marimow with Katz and Norcross as the owners were finalizing their purchase in 2012.

In the same hearing, Katz testified that Marimow was fired after the editor refused to dismiss senior staff members who had clashed with a relative of Norcross'. He did not name the relative. Norcross' daughter, Alessandra, is a director with management responsibility at Philly.com.

Through his spokesman, Norcross has repeatedly turned down requests for interviews. Katz noted that Norcross did not testify at the hearing.

"Remember, George Norcross has never taken an oath to tell the truth in this case," he said. "He had plenty of opportunity to tell his side in the Marimow situation, but that would have required him to take an oath to tell the truth."

Katz's attorneys had listed Norcross as a witness. They did not call him, and neither did Norcross' lawyers.