Christian Horner under Investigation

[basti313]

So where is the official source? I like the judge, but this is just a sentence without backing.
Mark Mateschitz himself released a letter to the employees of RedBull that he steps down from the operational role. One of the sources: https://www.derstandard.at/story/200014 ... g-red-bull

The source which cites Mateschitz clearly writes, that he is only a shareholder.

[Wouter]

So where is the official source? I like the judge, but this is just a sentence without backing.
Mark Mateschitz himself released a letter to the employees of RedBull that he steps down from the operational role. One of the sources: https://www.derstandard.at/story/200014 ... g-red-bull

The source which cites Mateschitz clearly writes, that he is only a shareholder.

.
So according to this German article, Mintzlaff, Watzlawick and Kirchmayr ( the three from the board of directors) made the decision that the lady's complaints were rejected. It was a statement from the board it was said.
So Mark Mateschitz and Yoovidhya did not have a say in that. That seems very strange to me.
It is THEIR company and the good name of RB GmbH is at stake.

[myurr]

So according to this German article, Mintzlaff, Watzlawick and Kirchmayr ( the three from the board of directors) made the decision that the lady's complaints were rejected. It was a statement from the board it was said.
So Mark Mateschitz and Yoovidhya did not have a say in that. That seems very strange to me.
It is THEIR company and the good name of RB GmbH is at stake.

It does appear that way on the surface, although we don't know what is in the shareholder's agreement in terms of any rights and powers Yoovidhya and Mateschitz have that specifically allows them to fire and appoint board directors. It's not unusual for large shareholders to have the power to appoint one or more members of the board unilaterally.

It's also not out of the question for major shareholders like Yoovidhya and Mateschitz to exert influence over the board, particularly in the case (like Yoovidhya) where a majority shareholder has the power to fire those board members. Ultimately the board are the ones who would have signed off on the resolution to dismiss the grievance and carry the legal responsibilities, both their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company, and their requirements and responsibilities as employers.

[basti313]

So where is the official source? I like the judge, but this is just a sentence without backing.
Mark Mateschitz himself released a letter to the employees of RedBull that he steps down from the operational role. One of the sources: https://www.derstandard.at/story/200014 ... g-red-bull

The source which cites Mateschitz clearly writes, that he is only a shareholder.

.
So according to this German article, Mintzlaff, Watzlawick and Kirchmayr ( the three from the board of directors) made the decision that the lady's complaints were rejected. It was a statement from the board it was said.

Well, who else should reject this? Again, not everything is clear on who is able to sign, but in the end it is usually one of them who signs something like this. I am not sure if this is something a board could even delegate.
AND it is the common thing at RedBull to show consent in decisions. Also in the newsletter post above, it was always a thing for Mateschitz to show consent to anyone external with Yoovidhya, same once they appointed the board. So the board also shows consent although according to the registration one alone could have signed/made the rejection.

So Mark Mateschitz and Yoovidhya did not have a say in that. That seems very strange to me.
It is THEIR company and the good name of RB GmbH is at stake.

Of course they have a say in this if they want to have a say. They (I doubt Mark as above) can replace the board immediately. So of course the board needs to follow what they want.

It does appear that way on the surface, although we don't know what is in the shareholder's agreement in terms of any rights and powers Yoovidhya and Mateschitz have that specifically allows them to fire and appoint board directors. It's not unusual for large shareholders to have the power to appoint one or more members of the board unilaterally.

I doubt this is present. Why should it be present?
Yoovidhya made Mateschitz sen. the CEO or they had an agreement that Mateschitz is and stays the CEO.
But it was clearly reported, that there is no more contract that puts Mark Mateschitz into any power and there is nothing in Northdata about a change in a shareholder agreement once Mark got the shares.
So I do not see what Mark has to say...I think they just showed the usual consent just for reasons...and Mark does all he can, collect his 49% money and sit at home.

[myurr]

I doubt this is present. Why should it be present?

I didn't say it is, I said it's not unusual. It's a protection for significant minority shareholders to not have a board put in place by a majority shareholder to serve only their interests. For example should you raise equity investment for, say, 20% of the shares then the investor is likely to insist they have the right to appoint at least one director to represent their views and interests on the board.

It would be unusual for a company founded with a 51/49% share split between two shareholders to not have any protections in place for the minority holder.

[Watto]

I doubt this is present. Why should it be present?

I didn't say it is, I said it's not unusual. It's a protection for significant minority shareholders to not have a board put in place by a majority shareholder to serve only their interests. For example should you raise equity investment for, say, 20% of the shares then the investor is likely to insist they have the right to appoint at least one director to represent their views and interests on the board.

It would be unusual for a company founded with a 51/49% share split between two shareholders to not have any protections in place for the minority holder.

I’d imagine Mark would retain a position on the board I took it as he didn’t want day to day control of the company much like Yoovidhya when Dierich was around I feel/suspect the arrangement may have been Mateschitz was given day to day and CEO control Yoovidhya 51% in return. Both had a ‘gun’ of sorts should things sour but they knew they could work together


Now this all change now I have a harder time telling

[Dunlay]

According to AMuS, Christian Horner's position was not weakened at the meeting of the Red Bull bosses in Dubai, but actually strengthened.

The Thai side is fully behind the plans of Horner, who wants to take complete control of both the drinks group and the motorsport empire.

If there was ever any hope of slowing down Christian Horner's quest for power in the Red Bull Group or even getting rid of him, then it has vanished with the meeting of Red Bull bosses after the Saudi Arabian GP in Dubai. Contrary to media reports to the contrary, Horner's position at the meeting was not weakened, but rather strengthened.

In view of the unexpected offensive from Thailand, the Austrian faction with Oliver Mintzlaff and Franz Watzlawick is apparently more concerned about keeping their positions on the sinking ship. However, the number can go wrong. Rumors were circulating in the Melbourne paddock that Red Bull Holding could be relocated entirely to Dubai.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... on-martin/

[Wouter]

Christian Horner’s accuser targets Red Bull return to work as she awaits appeal outcome

Exclusive: The female complainant remains ‘in it for the long haul’ and is set to take her case to an employment tribunal should her appeal fail

Christian Horner’s suspended female colleague – who accused the Red Bull F1 boss of inappropriate behaviour – wants to work for the team again as she awaits the outcome of her appeal, say industry sources.

The Independent also understands that Horner’s accuser is “in it for the long haul”, and the woman is set to take her case to an employment tribunal should her appeal fail. She has also not received any update from the FIA, after she filed a complaint about Horner’s behaviour to F1’s governing body.

The female complainant was suspended, on full pay, by Red Bull Racing a matter of days after a three-week probe, conducted by an external KC at the request of the team’s parent company Red Bull GmbH, cleared Horner of any wrongdoing. However, The Independent has learned that she is targeting a return to work at the F1 world championship-winning team.

An industry source said: “She remains resolute and is in it for the long haul. She’s holding her council for now and wants the matter dealt with privately.”

Should her appeal fail, an employment tribunal would potentially see previously confidential information enter the public domain. It is also understood that the woman worked with Horner after the complaint against him was raised at the end of last year.

Red Bull have been approached for comment.

https://www.independent.co.uk/f1/christ ... 20164.html

[PapayaFan481]

Then surely somone is funding her PR agency expenses, considering it's not something an average PA can afford, more so when she is suspended.

I think the narrative "average PA" is simply wrong. She is well in the middle of UKs money aristocracy...with millionaire friends and family all around.
We are not talking about a poor woman now fighting to feed her 3 children.

That makes me wonder why would someone do a PA job if so wealthy already or surrounded by millionaires? Usually, it's a job that pays around 30k to 40k GBP per annum.

https://uk.indeed.com/career/personal-a ... t/salaries

No way that the PA for a CEO of an F1 team is only on that wage. They would very much be on the higher end of the salary, plus all the travel and other perks that come from being part of the F1 circus.

[PapayaFan481]

Christian Horner, 50-year-old team principal, has been accused of harassing a female employee.

An internal inquiry cleared him of wrongdoing last month. The complainant is now appealing that verdict.

She – and whoever is funding her – is paying legal fees running into hundreds of thousands of pounds to Goodwin Procter,
a global law firm with headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts, having parted from her previous lawyers, UK-based Lewis Silkin.

The employee is suspended from work at Red Bull’s factory in Milton Keynes on full pay – something like £65,000 a year.
Yet she has also hired a spin doctor, Giles Kenningham, a former head of press at 10 Downing Street and spokesman for Lord David Cameron.

Kenningham was awarded an MBE for political and public service in Cameron’s 2016 resignation honours. He has since set up
his own PR agency, Trafalgar Strategy, self-styled ‘as a strategic communications consultancy, specialising in public affairs,
crisis comms and reputation management’. Presumably, Kenningham’s services don’t come cheap.
‘£15,000 to £20,000 a month,’ estimated one Formula One insider.

The strong feeling is that, regardless of the issue at hand, forces within Red Bull want Horner out as part of an internal power struggle. (Follow the money.)

This kinda stuff is why, I've sad a few times the story not quite adding up to me. This is far from saying I don't think Horners has done anything wrong or that he shouldn't be removed. Just it feels a lot like something is missing - and by all means it could very well be that things are far worse for RBR. The decision to suspend her for being 'dishonest' is either a move they've made with some evidence or its not far off pressing a self destruct button on the team itself. Make a complaint against your boss, find yourself being suspended on full day with 5 days to respond (or what ever it was) isn't sending a great message to the rest of the 1400~ employees at Red Bull. Boss does something wrong/questionable you lose your job is a brave move. The top talent will easily enough find jobs elsewhere i other teams if they chose.

I am wondering whether the "dishonest" behaviour is a separate thing from the complaint. Sort of like, they've looked into her and found that she put in false expenses claims or something like that (not saying she did, purely using that as a hypothetical) and they're using that as grounds to suspend her....

[Watto]

This kinda stuff is why, I've sad a few times the story not quite adding up to me. This is far from saying I don't think Horners has done anything wrong or that he shouldn't be removed. Just it feels a lot like something is missing - and by all means it could very well be that things are far worse for RBR. The decision to suspend her for being 'dishonest' is either a move they've made with some evidence or its not far off pressing a self destruct button on the team itself. Make a complaint against your boss, find yourself being suspended on full day with 5 days to respond (or what ever it was) isn't sending a great message to the rest of the 1400~ employees at Red Bull. Boss does something wrong/questionable you lose your job is a brave move. The top talent will easily enough find jobs elsewhere i other teams if they chose.

I am wondering whether the "dishonest" behaviour is a separate thing from the complaint. Sort of like, they've looked into her and found that she put in false expenses claims or something like that (not saying she did, purely using that as a hypothetical) and they're using that as grounds to suspend her....

Thats a fair point. But I guess what you found would have something pretty serious otherwise its almost pretty petty for lodging a complaint against your boss. And would feel like it wouldn't go down well with a tribunal as it really doesn't invalidate per complains either.

[Wouter]

Someone on the Autosport forum posted a link from an article from today in Formula Passion. Very interesting.

If it is true what Formula Passion has written than this makes sense. Marko only talked about the Thai, not about other members of RB. "Everything is okay for them." So not for the Austrian people and many people at RBR.

And it makes sense why Horners lawyers tried to stop the sale of the Business F1 Magazine with information about the "independend" lawyer.
.

Marko answered whether the Horner case was over:

"From the Thai shareholders' side, everything is clear. Everything is okay for them. Whether there is anything more to come or not - no idea. It's a very complex matter that is difficult to understand." "We have other worries at the moment."

Will he continue to work as a "consultant" as usual? Marko: "Well... Well, I would say so. There are always talks and discussions."
With whom? "My direct superior is Red Bull CEO Oliver Mintzlaff."
Marko emphasises that his relationship with the German is "correct". His consultancy contract runs until the end of the 2026 season.
And will he fulfil it? "At the moment," says Marko after a short pause, "we have other things to worry about than what I'm doing."

The last time he spoke to Chalerm Yoovidhya was at the turn of the year 2023/24 - when the Horner case was not yet public.
"But conversations usually go through the British lawyer Peter Blake-Turner."

From their own site: Peter Blake-Turner is the senior partner, and a highly experienced lawyer in a variety of areas of law. Peter has steered many clients to success in the Court of Appeal.

Working from heart of London in Fenchurch Street, Peter’s recent work also includes providing high level advice to the board of an international privately owned company, and in particular acting for the majority shareholders of that company.

https://www.blaketurner.com/our-team/pe ... ke-turner/ See a photo from an 70+ year lawyer as FP stated, the same Peter Blake-Turner.

.
Formula Passion. Some quotes translated:

“Obviously the lawyer was not independent, but he carried out their instructions. How do I know? I was told he is their lawyer...". Everyone knows, no one can talk Business F1 Magazine therefore investigated the tip-off, revealing the name of the lawyer in question and his law firm. This is an over 70 yo person with great experience in business matters, therefore mergers, acquisitions, insolvencies and disputes.

The peculiarity is that "he is the legal representative and London lawyer of the Yoovidhya family, 51% owners of Red Bull". And his studio “makes no secret of working for Yoovidhya“. Î
And this aspect casts great shadows on the independence of the lawyer and the overall management of the accusations.
This is a matter well known to all the top management of the company and the F1 team (the CEOs Watzlawick, Kirchmayr and Mintzlaff, Max and Jos Verstappen, Marko and Newey), who cannot expose themselves publicly as Yoovidhya is, for all intents and purposes , their employer.

Business F1 Magazine also alleged that the lawyer had been mandated by Yoovidhya to prepare a report clearing Christian Horner of all charges. In fact, the report of around 200 pages contained only a minimal part of the employee's complaints and magnified the results achieved by the team principal at the helm of Red Bull Racing.

Finally, the magazine listed the lawyers who are assisting Christian Horner: among them is the firm with the name
of the 'independent' lawyer......

The 'independent' lawyer who acquitted Horner is Yoovidhya's London lawyer.

Peter Blake-Turner

[peewon]

Someone on the Autosport forum posted a link from an article from today in Formula Passion. Very interesting.

If it is true what Formula Passion has written than this makes sense. Marko only talked about the Thai, not about other members of RB. "Everything is okay for them." So not for the Austrian people and many people at RBR.

And it makes sense why Horners lawyers tried to stop the sale of the Business F1 Magazine with information about the "independend" lawyer.
.

Marko answered whether the Horner case was over:

"From the Thai shareholders' side, everything is clear. Everything is okay for them. Whether there is anything more to come or not - no idea. It's a very complex matter that is difficult to understand." "We have other worries at the moment."

Will he continue to work as a "consultant" as usual? Marko: "Well... Well, I would say so. There are always talks and discussions."
With whom? "My direct superior is Red Bull CEO Oliver Mintzlaff."
Marko emphasises that his relationship with the German is "correct". His consultancy contract runs until the end of the 2026 season.
And will he fulfil it? "At the moment," says Marko after a short pause, "we have other things to worry about than what I'm doing."

The last time he spoke to Chalerm Yoovidhya was at the turn of the year 2023/24 - when the Horner case was not yet public.
"But conversations usually go through the British lawyer Peter Blake-Turner."

From their own site: Peter Blake-Turner is the senior partner, and a highly experienced lawyer in a variety of areas of law. Peter has steered many clients to success in the Court of Appeal.

Working from heart of London in Fenchurch Street, Peter’s recent work also includes providing high level advice to the board of an international privately owned company, and in particular acting for the majority shareholders of that company.

https://www.blaketurner.com/our-team/pe ... ke-turner/ See a photo from an 70+ year lawyer as FP stated, the same Peter Blake-Turner.

.
Formula Passion. Some quotes translated:

“Obviously the lawyer was not independent, but he carried out their instructions. How do I know? I was told he is their lawyer...". Everyone knows, no one can talk Business F1 Magazine therefore investigated the tip-off, revealing the name of the lawyer in question and his law firm. This is an over 70 yo person with great experience in business matters, therefore mergers, acquisitions, insolvencies and disputes.

The peculiarity is that "he is the legal representative and London lawyer of the Yoovidhya family, 51% owners of Red Bull". And his studio “makes no secret of working for Yoovidhya“. Î
And this aspect casts great shadows on the independence of the lawyer and the overall management of the accusations.
This is a matter well known to all the top management of the company and the F1 team (the CEOs Watzlawick, Kirchmayr and Mintzlaff, Max and Jos Verstappen, Marko and Newey), who cannot expose themselves publicly as Yoovidhya is, for all intents and purposes , their employer.

Business F1 Magazine also alleged that the lawyer had been mandated by Yoovidhya to prepare a report clearing Christian Horner of all charges. In fact, the report of around 200 pages contained only a minimal part of the employee's complaints and magnified the results achieved by the team principal at the helm of Red Bull Racing.

Finally, the magazine listed the lawyers who are assisting Christian Horner: among them is the firm with the name
of the 'independent' lawyer......

The 'independent' lawyer who acquitted Horner is Yoovidhya's London lawyer.

Peter Blake-Turner https://imgur.com/CDudf0H.jpg

This is the same magazine that was the source for the Susie Wolff conflict of interest story...

https://businessf1magazine.com/december ... f_3478/11/

It claimed that teams had informally complained to the FIA about a conflict of interest. All other teams came out and denied it. The magazine and its owner have been sued successfully multiple times in the past for libel damages...

https://www.grandprix.com/news/business ... a-hit.html

Even to the point of going into insolvency...

https://pressgazette.co.uk/archive-cont ... ibel-bill/

Its possible he makes these claims based on information but unable to provide substantiated sources for them but its hard to make concrete assertions based on their reporting if you care about credibility.

[myurr]

Its possible he makes these claims based on information but unable to provide substantiated sources for them but its hard to make concrete assertions based on their reporting if you care about credibility.

Let's see if there's a public denial and court action launched against them then. Whilst their reputation isn't the best, in stories relating to this case they do appear to have a decent first hand source feeding them information from the Austrian side of the business. The other details they've broken haven't been proven false thus far.

So I'll treat it with a pinch of salt whilst entertaining the possibility it is at least plausible that the story is accurate.

[Wouter]

Its possible he makes these claims based on information but unable to provide substantiated sources for them but its hard to make concrete assertions based on their reporting if you care about credibility.

.
Let's see if there's a public denial and court action launched against them then. Whilst their reputation isn't the best, in stories relating to this case they do appear to have a decent first hand source feeding them information from the Austrian side of the business. The other details they've broken haven't been proven false thus far.

So I'll treat it with a pinch of salt whilst entertaining the possibility it is at least plausible that the story is accurate.

.
They were also the first to report that there was a power struggle going on within Red Bull when no one had heard about it and that turned out to be true much later.
They have had complaints lodged against them before, but it was not always honored. The above two links to articles are from 2005 and 2007.
There could also be some truth in this. They clearly have a source within RB.