Disney shareholders seek records on Kimmel suspension

Disney shareholders are demanding access to internal documents related to the decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel, escalating the dispute over how the entertainment giant handled a controversial monologue. In a letter coordinated with the Democracy Defenders Fund and signed by lawyers representing the American Federation of Teachers, Reporters Without Borders, Inc., and other shareholder groups, the letter requests board records surrounding the suspension and warns executives could have breached their fiduciary duties by succumbing to political pressure. Semafor reported the letter, and The Post confirmed its existence. The letter argues that the Board and senior management may have placed improper political or affiliate considerations above the best interests of the company and its stockholders, and it seeks evidence on potential financial fallout and governance decisions related to the case.

In tandem with the filing, the groups are asking Disney to hand over analyses estimating the financial impact of the suspension, as well as documents detailing how executives manage politically sensitive programming. They also want copies of Disney’s affiliate agreements with Nexstar and Sinclair, the two broadcast partners whose threats to pull Kimmel’s show helped precipitate the suspension, along with board-level emails, including those involving CEO Bob Iger, and any correspondence between Disney and federal officials or political organizations. The letter cites Delaware law, which allows shareholders to demand access to books and records to investigate potential corporate wrongdoing.

The backdrop to the request is a recent drop in Disney’s market value following the suspension. In the days after Kimmel was benched by Iger and Disney Entertainment co-Chair Dana Walden over his remarks linking an alleged shooter to the MAGA movement, the company saw more than $4 billion erased from its stock value as critics in Hollywood accused Disney of yielding to pressure and some talent threatened to sever ties. The Associated Press and other outlets documented investor concern and reputational damage that followed the episode, which also prompted pre-emptions by Nexstar and Sinclair.

The letter’s signatories and their legal team include Roberta Kaplan, a prominent civil-rights attorney who has represented clients in high-profile lawsuits against political figures. The Democracy Defenders Fund, founded by former Obama adviser Norman Eisen, coordinated the effort. Kaplan and her colleagues warned that if Disney does not provide the requested documents within five business days, they will pursue a lawsuit to compel production. The groups emphasized that the requests are limited to board-level actions and governance records, not day-to-day management correspondence, noting that some materials—such as communications between Iger, Walden, and Kimmel himself—may remain outside the scope of the demand.

Kimmel’s suspension followed a Sept. 15 monologue in which he linked an alleged shooter to the MAGA movement, a remark that sparked a strong reaction from conservative audiences and prompted Nexstar and Sinclair to pull Kimmel’s show from some markets. Disney subsequently allowed the program to resume a few days later, with Kimmel noting that he did not intend to blame any single group. While Disney said it was returning the show to the air, some affiliates have continued to pre-empt it in certain markets as a precautionary measure.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr publicly discussed the possibility of federal involvement after the controversy, remarks that reportedly rattled Disney leadership in Burbank. The Post reported on Carr’s comments and their potential political and regulatory implications, though Disney has not publicly stated that it would engage with federal officials over the matter.

The shareholders’ action spotlights ongoing tensions between media companies’ governance responsibilities and the political pressures that can accompany controversial programming decisions. While such records requests are a common prelude to litigation, they typically cover board-level actions rather than day-to-day operations. Analysts note that this distinction often narrows the scope of what can be disclosed, and the outcome may hinge on how broadly the plaintiffs can argue that the decision-making process at the highest levels of Disney warrants scrutiny.

Disney did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Post. The company has previously defended its decision to suspend Kimmel as a response to concerns over content and the perceived political implications of his remarks, while some investors and talent have criticized the move as capitulating to pressure from critics and affiliates.

The launch of this legal push underscores how high-profile entertainment decisions can quickly become corporate governance matters with financial implications. As the dispute unfolds, observers will watch whether Disney releases any board-level documents or whether the legal process reveals more about how the company weighs political considerations against shareholder interests.

The broader market and media industries will continue to watch how Disney manages governance transparency in the wake of this controversy, including how affiliate relationships and internal communications influence high-stakes programming decisions and the company’s response to political pressure in a polarized media environment.

As the five-business-day window for document production begins, the dispute remains in a fragile phase, with the potential for a court battle that could reveal new details about governance protocols at one of the world’s largest entertainment companies.