A Family Affair

President, chief stockholder and supersalesman of Revlon, Inc. is Charles Haskell Revson, 53, the prodigal parvenu of the perfume-and-lipstick trade, whose reputation for omniscience about milady's taste is matched only by his legendary omnivorousness toward his own executives (TIME, Nov. 16). Last week a former Revlon vice president sued Charles Revson for $601,460 damages on charges of breach of agreement in a stock transaction made when the plaintiff left Revlon two years ago. The plaintiff: Martin Elliot Revson, Charlie's younger (49) brother.

The Revson brothers have a talent for making headlines. In the quiz-show scandals last fall Brother Martin was described to House investigators as the RevIon executive who attended the weekly $64,000 Question producer sessions where contestants--and their longevity on the Revlon-sponsored series--were discussed. Martin denied any knowledge of rigging, pointed out that he no longer worked for Revlon anyway. Charles testified that he left Question questions to Martin, refused to discuss why his brother had quit.

Ribald Humor. In his suit filed in a New York court last week, Martin finally explained why: "Charles Revson engaged in a practice of mistreating executives of Revlon, Inc. and abusing them personally to such extent that men of proven capacity who held high positions in nationally known corporations before and after their employment by Revlon, Inc. suffered humiliation and impaired efficiency and left Revlon, Inc. to escape mistreatment. The rate of turnover of Revlon executives became a subject of ribald humor." In 1958, says Martin's complaint, he concluded that Charles's personnel practices were endangering the success of the company and his own investment in it. He asked to get out.

Charles was willing to let Martin out. But unfortunately, he explained, there was a problem about Martin's stock, which was tied up in a voting trust that enabled the older brother to control 51% of Revlon's stock and dictate Revlon policy. Charles would be glad to exchange 100,000 of Martin's Revlon shares for the equivalent value in the stock of Schering Corp., a New Jersey drug firm which Revlon had bought with the idea of a merger, later dropped. But Charlie's legal counsel had advised him, he said, that a straight-value switch might hint of favoritism, open Revlon to stockholder protests of waste and mismanagement. Would Martin accept the equivalent value in Schering stock at $3 a share less than the market value of his Revlon stock?

Inside Information. Martin said he agreed only after Charles assured him that he had inside information that Schering stock was going to appreciate much faster than Revlon. And anyway, they would informally agree that if it did not, Martin would be reimbursed his $3 a share plus the market-value difference.

Schering stock did appreciate 70%. But Revlon went up 75.5% in the period they had agreed upon (Aug. 15, 1958 to July 15, 1959). When Martin asked for the $600,000 owed him, he said he found his brotherly agreement worth no more than the paper it had never been written on. To top it all, says Martin's suit, he learned that Charlie's legal counsel had never advised against a straight-value exchange in the first place. Replied Brother Charles: "The suit is without merit. It is unfortunate that the language of the complaint contains the kind of emotional statements which sometimes characterize suits involving members of the same family."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.