deal

Buffett Says Goldman Shouldn’t Be Blamed for Clients’ Losing Mortgage Bets

May 1, 2010

By Andrew Frye and Jamie McGee May 1 (Bloomberg) — Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chairman Warren Buffett said Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shouldn’t be blamed for losses suffered by clients who invested in mortgage bets at the center of a fraud suit filed by regulators against the bank. Buffett said he stands behind the bank, which was sued last month by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for misleading clients who made wagers on home loans. The regulator said that firms including ABN Amro Bank NV weren’t told when they bet on collateralized debt obligations from Goldman Sachs that the hedge fund led by John Paulson picked mortgages in the investment and was betting on them to fail. “I can’t see what difference it makes if it were Paulson on the other side of the deal or Goldman Sachs or Berkshire Hathaway,” Buffett said today at his company’s annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. Buffett said it “wasn’t so obvious” when the investments were sold in 2007 that the housing market would collapse. Buffett, who is also Berkshire’s chief executive officer, invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in 2008 and has praised the bank for its risk management . Berkshire makes $500 million a year in interest on its Goldman Sachs preferred stock. The warrants Buffett negotiated as part of the deal give Berkshire the option to buy $5 billion of common stock for $115 a share. The shares closed at $145.20 yesterday. “I did not hold it against Goldman Sachs that an allegation has been made,” Buffett said. He said he’d review the case further “if it leads to something more serious.” Our Own Decision Senator Carl Levin , who led a subcommittee that questioned Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein on April 27, accused the bank of conflicts of interest for selling mortgage bets to clients as it cut its own housing exposure. Buffett said today that Berkshire has four decades of experience with Goldman Sachs and no expectation that the bank would offer investment advice or disclose its own stance on trades. “We are in the business of making our own decisions,” Buffett said. “They do not owe us a divulgence of their position.” To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Frye in Omaha at afrye@bloomberg.net ; Jamie McGee in New York at jmcgee8@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Buffett Says Goldman Shouldn’t Be Blamed for Clients’ Losing Mortgage Bets

May 1, 2010

By Andrew Frye and Jamie McGee May 1 (Bloomberg) — Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chairman Warren Buffett said Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shouldn’t be blamed for losses suffered by clients who invested in mortgage bets at the center of a fraud suit filed by regulators against the bank. Buffett said he stands behind the bank, which was sued last month by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for misleading clients who made wagers on home loans. The regulator said that firms including ABN Amro Bank NV weren’t told when they bet on collateralized debt obligations from Goldman Sachs that the hedge fund led by John Paulson picked mortgages in the investment and was betting on them to fail. “I can’t see what difference it makes if it were Paulson on the other side of the deal or Goldman Sachs or Berkshire Hathaway,” Buffett said today at his company’s annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. Buffett said it “wasn’t so obvious” when the investments were sold in 2007 that the housing market would collapse. Buffett, who is also Berkshire’s chief executive officer, invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in 2008 and has praised the bank for its risk management . Berkshire makes $500 million a year in interest on its Goldman Sachs preferred stock. The warrants Buffett negotiated as part of the deal give Berkshire the option to buy $5 billion of common stock for $115 a share. The shares closed at $145.20 yesterday. “I did not hold it against Goldman Sachs that an allegation has been made,” Buffett said. He said he’d review the case further “if it leads to something more serious.” Our Own Decision Senator Carl Levin , who led a subcommittee that questioned Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein on April 27, accused the bank of conflicts of interest for selling mortgage bets to clients as it cut its own housing exposure. Buffett said today that Berkshire has four decades of experience with Goldman Sachs and no expectation that the bank would offer investment advice or disclose its own stance on trades. “We are in the business of making our own decisions,” Buffett said. “They do not owe us a divulgence of their position.” To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Frye in Omaha at afrye@bloomberg.net ; Jamie McGee in New York at jmcgee8@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Google’s $750 Million AdMob Purchase Said to Be Opposed by U.S. FTC Staff

April 30, 2010

By Jeff Bliss and Dina Bass April 30 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Federal Trade Commission staff has recommended filing an antitrust suit challenging Google Inc. ’s $750 million acquisition of AdMob Inc., according to three people familiar with the matter. The recommendation was submitted to the five-member commission, which will decide whether to follow the staff’s advice or approve the deal. The people familiar with the matter spoke on condition of anonymity. Peter Kaplan, an FTC spokesman, declined to comment. The FTC staff signaled last month it was leaning toward urging a court challenge when it was disclosed the agency was seeking sworn declarations from Google’s competitors and advertisers. “We’re continuing to talk with the FTC about our acquisition of AdMob,” said Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich . “We’re confident that they’ll conclude that the rapidly growing mobile advertising space will remain highly competitive after this deal closes.” The concern is that Mountain View, California-based Google, owner of the world’s most popular web search engine, would reduce competition in the market for advertising on mobile phones. AdMob, based in San Mateo, California, sells ads that appear on web pages and applications on mobile phones. Advertisers have expressed concern the deal would lead to higher rates. “We want it to be competitive,” said Simon Buckingham , chief executive officer of Appitalism Inc., a New York-based software developer. “I’m not going to have any choices” if the purchase goes through. Mobile Advertising Google’s purchase of AdMob would form the largest mobile- advertising company. The companies combined had 21 percent of the U.S. market in 2009, according to Karsten Weide , an analyst with researcher IDC in San Mateo. The market has been doubling or more in size annually, Weide said. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers today asked for an FTC briefing on the investigation. “The need for a thorough review is particularly pressing given Google’s dominant position in search advertising” and “its growing influence over other forms of online advertising,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman , a California Democrat. Democrats John Barrow of Georgia, Frank Pallone of New Jersey and Bruce Braley of Iowa and Republicans Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Mike Rogers of Michigan signed the letter. On April 12, Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt said Apple Inc.’s move into mobile advertising shows the market is competitive and that federal regulators should permit the AdMob purchase. Apple is planning to offer iAd, an advertising platform to compete with AdMob. To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

David Fiderer: Hard Evidence of Goldman’s Corrupt Intent and the Myth of the Sophisticated Investor

April 23, 2010

Many is the time I would review a write-up of a new deal and scribble in the margins, “Get to the bleeping point!” Unless you can articulate, up front, exactly what assets we would be lending against, and what circumstances would cause us to lose money (i.e. a quick-and-dirty breakeven analysis), you don’t really know what you’re talking about. And if you don’t have a good grasp of that issue, everything else you have to say is superfluous, a waste of time. This lack of common sense is pervasive, extending far beyond the financial services industry. (When, over the last seven years, have you ever heard a journalist ask, “How many troops do we have to replace those currently deployed in Iraq?”) In certain markets, most notably, CDOs, this lack of common sense was institutionalized. It’s evident in the deal book for Abacus 2007 AC-1 , at the center of the S.E.C.’s case against Goldman. What risks are investors assuming? The presentation doesn’t say. There’s a reference portfolio of 90 subprime mortgage bonds, on pages 55 and 56, which ostensibly would be insured via credit default swaps for the benefit of Goldman. But, as the small print says, “Goldman Sachs neither represents nor provides any assurances that the actual Reference Portfolio on the Closing Date or any future date will have the same characteristics as represented above.” According to my bias, everything else in the 66-page presentation is superfluous. And the real reference portfolio for Abacus 2001 AC-1 remains, to my knowledge at this point in time, hidden from public view. But if we assume that no one pulled a bait-and-switch, then the evidence of Goldman’s corrupt intent was always hiding in plain sight. Eyeballing the list of 90 subprime reference obligations, I happened to recognize a few that were notorious. J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. 2006-FRE1 (JPMAC 2006-FRE1) was a billion-dollar subprime bond that imploded right away. About 13% of its loans were in foreclosure (either in the foreclosure process or as real estate owned, known as REO) as of April 26, 2007, when Abacus 2007 AC-1 closed. Because JPMAC 2006-FRE1 had such a high level of serious delinquencies at that time, no cash flow could be could be applied to any principal repayment for 10 of the 11 tranches that were senior to the BBB tranche, which Goldman shorted. It was obvious that BBB tranche, in the bottom 7% of the capital structure, would default. Goldman wasn’t assuming any kind of risk at all. There was virtual certainty that it would collect on the credit default swap. The same certainty applied to Argent Securities Trust Series 2006-W1 , which had a 10% foreclosure rate, to Morgan Stanley Abs Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-WMC2, which had an 8% foreclosure rate, and to Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2006-4 , which also had an 8% foreclosure rate. Each of those deals had already tripped up the delinquency trigger in its respective cash flow waterfall structure. In other words, there really wasn’t any doubt that Goldman would collect on its credit default swaps. These are just a couple of high profile deals that I happened to recognize. They may not be representative of the actual overall portfolio. But common sense tells me all I need to know. This deal was designed to provide a windfall to Goldman at the expense of some unwitting suckers. Goldman has asserted that the portfolio selection did not matter, that all subprime bonds of that 2006 vintage performed badly. Exactly. As explained here previously, the real estate bubble concealed a multitude of sins. In 2005, people who could not afford their mortgages would still sell their homes and recover some equity. Home flipping schemes were profitable, and promptly paid off the loans. But when home appreciation stopped in 2006, those same types of borrowers, who had lost their equity, were walking away handing over the keys to lenders. Goldman and John Paulson saw the spike in delinquencies and figured out what was going on, which was why they were aggressively shorting those deals. All this gets back to the myth of the sophisticated investor. The reference portfolio of credit default swaps was static, with no substitutions or reinvestments allowed. So after the deal closed, it didn’t matter whether the investment manager were a subsidiary of ABN Amro or two guys with a Bloomberg terminal. Pre-closing, the most important question was: How likely is it that Goldman will collect on its swaps? The motivations of ACA Management, the nominal Portfolio Selection Agent, were not all that relevant. But the deal book clearly demonstrates Goldman’s intent to distract attention away from the underlying substance of the deal. In other Goldman deals, notably Anderson Mezzanine Funding 2007 , Abacus 2006-13 and Abacus 2006-17 , the opportunities for abusive self-dealing were conspicuous. Abacus 2007 AC-1 is clearly organized to seduce investors with an illusory sense of comfort, that ACA Management, an independent third party and subsidiary of a global bank, would offset Goldman’s motivation to shaft investors. The irony, of course, is that Goldman worked in tandem with John Paulson to minimize any possibility that investors escape unharmed. Still, from looking at ACA Management’s organization chart and its staff biographies, I never would have expected that they could not have known, as of the CDO’s closing date on April 26, 2007, that Goldman’s windfall was a sure thing. They must have reviewed the current performance reports on 90 different bonds. How could they miss it? Somebody at ACA was afflicted with a pretty big case of willful blindness.

Read the full article →

Russia, Egypt Seek to Raise $8.5 Billion in Return to Overseas Bond Market

April 21, 2010

By Gabrielle Coppola and Denis Maternovsky April 22 (Bloomberg) — Russia will seek to raise $7 billion in its first international debt sale since the 1998 default while Egypt returns to the dollar debt market after nine years to take advantage of a tumble in borrowing costs. The Russian government will sell $3.5 billion of five-year notes and an equal amount of 10-year bonds as soon as today, according to three people familiar with the deal. Egypt increased its $1 billion offering of 10-year debt to include $500 million of 30-year bonds, which may also price today, a banker involved in the transaction said. Russia and Egypt are selling bonds after the extra yield investors demand to hold emerging-market securities rather than U.S. Treasuries sank to 2.309 percentage points April 15, the lowest level since December 2007. Pacific Investment Management Co., manager of the world’s largest bond fund, recommended a shift away from the U.S., U.K. and Europe debt this week as the International Monetary Fund projected developing economies will expand three times faster than advanced nations this year. “There’s lots of demand for emerging-market debt,” said Jim Craige , who helps oversee $12 billion at Stone Harbor Investment Partners in New York. Russia’s economy has recovered and “everybody believes their growth story,” he said. Russia is selling dollar bonds for the first time since the government defaulted on $40 billion of domestic debt in 1998. The country is offering a yield of about 125 basis points over similar-maturity U.S. Treasuries on its five-year notes and a 135 basis-point spread on the 10-year bonds, people familiar with the sale said. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. Russia, Egypt Russian bonds have rallied as rising oil prices helped the economy recover from its worst recession since 1991. The yield on Russia’s 11 percent dollar note due July 2018 has dropped 77 basis points to 4.489 percent this year, according to prices by Renaissance Capital. The nation’s debt is rated BBB by Standard & Poor’s, two levels above non-investment grade, and one step higher at Baa1 by Moody’s Investors Service. The new debt will yield about 20 basis points more than current yields on comparable Mexican securities, which has the same credit ratings. Spreads on Mexican government bonds rose two basis points to 129 basis points yesterday, JPMorgan Chase & Co. data show. Egypt may sell $1 billion of 10-year notes to yield about 5.875 percent and $500 million of 30-year bonds to yield about 7 percent, according to a banker involved in the transaction who declined to be identified because terms aren’t set. Egyptian bonds “are not the ‘usual suspects’ in the eurobond market,” said Luis Costa , a London-based emerging- market strategist at Citigroup Inc. “That will probably bring some sort of a scarcity premium to the deal.” Emerging-Market Debt The extra yield investors demand to own emerging-market debt over U.S. Treasuries increased four basis points, or 0.04 percentage point, to 2.41 percentage points, according to JPMorgan’s EMBI+ Index at 5:10 p.m. yesterday New York time. The spread has shrunk from 3.27 percentage points in February. The IMF said yesterday advanced economies including the U.S., Germany and Japan will grow 2.3 percent this year, while emerging nations will expand 6.3 percent. The World Bank estimates Russia’s economic growth will accelerate to 5.5 percent this year. Egypt’s government projects the economy will grow more than 5 percent this fiscal year. Investors should buy emerging-market debt rather than bonds of developed countries because advanced economies are poised for a period of slower growth, according to Pimco. “Investors need to recognize that the investment opportunities are not going to necessarily be in the U.S., the U.K and Europe any longer,” Brian Baker , Pimco Asia Ltd.’s chief executive officer, said in Hong Kong this week. HSBC Holdings Plc and Morgan Stanley are managing the Egyptian debt offering, the banker said. Russia hired Barclays Capital, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG and VTB Capital on Feb. 5 to arrange the sale. To contact the reporters on this story: Gabrielle Coppola in New York at gcoppola@bloomberg.net Denis Maternovsky in Moscow at dmaternovsky@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Says SEC’s Fraud Case Hinges on Actions of Single Employee

April 20, 2010

By Christine Harper and David Scheer April 21 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said the U.S. fraud case against the firm hinges on the actions of the employee it placed on paid leave this week. Fabrice Tourre , the 31-year-old Goldman Sachs executive director who was accused of misleading investors about a mortgage-linked investment in 2007, will also be de-registered from the Financial Services Authority , a spokeswoman at the firm in London said yesterday. “It’s all going to be a factual dispute about what he remembers and what the other folks remember on the other side,” Greg Palm , Goldman Sachs’s co-general counsel, said in a call with reporters yesterday, without naming Tourre. “If we had evidence that someone here was trying to mislead someone, that’s not something we’d condone at all and we’d be the first one to take action.” By characterizing the case as a dispute involving a single employee, Goldman Sachs may be taking its first steps to publically distance itself from Tourre in the case, some lawyers said. That could reduce bad publicity and ultimately make it easier for the company to settle the case. Goldman Sachs may also want to separate itself from Tourre if it’s concerned he will cooperate with the SEC or implicate more senior employees, said Onnig Dombalagian , a professor at Tulane University Law School in New Orleans and former attorney fellow at the SEC. ‘Vicarious Liability’ “If Tourre says, ‘Goldman’s board knew what we were doing,’ you can imagine Goldman will want to portray him as disgruntled,” or willing to lie to avoid punishment, the professor said. That may not help the firm itself, he added. “Under theories of vicarious liability, if you can find Tourre liable, it’s going to be hard for Goldman to escape.” Pamela Chepiga , a lawyer for Tourre at Allen & Overy LLP in New York, didn’t return a call seeking comment. The New York- based bank has previously denied wrongdoing and said it will fight the SEC’s case because it is “completely unfounded in law and fact.” The SEC sued Goldman Sachs and Tourre for misleading two investors in a collateralized debt obligation about the role played by hedge fund Paulson & Co. ACA Management LLC, which served as the CDO’s selection agent, didn’t realize that Paulson planned to bet against the deal even though the fund was advising ACA on the portfolio, the SEC alleged. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG , an investor in the CDO, didn’t know about Paulson’s role at all, the SEC said. ‘He Said-She said’ The SEC complaint “clearly revolves a little bit around ‘he said-she said,’ ” Palm said, and hinges on whether Tourre misled ACA into believing that Paulson was investing in the deal instead of betting against it. Byron Georgiou , a member of a U.S. panel that’s investigating the financial crisis, said he doubts Goldman Sachs could make a convincing case that Tourre acted alone and without the full support of his superiors. “It’s hard to imagine that there wasn’t some supervision of a 27-year-old, at that time, trader structuring a billion- dollar transaction on which Goldman made a $15 million fee,” Georgiou, who serves on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission , said in a Bloomberg Television interview. Palm said Tourre “believes that he indicated” to ACA that Paulson was interested in taking a “short” position on the deal, meaning he was betting against it, Palm said. “Our employee certainly knows that he did not represent to ACA or indicate in any way that Paulson was going to be an equity investor in this transaction.” Goldman Sachs, which vowed on April 16 that it would “vigorously contest” the SEC’s suit, isn’t ruling out a potential settlement, Palm said. “You go to trial, which is what we’re doing, and you always have the option of, if there is an agreeable settlement to both sides, of settling at any point in time,” he said. To contact the reporter on this story: Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

The Three-Headed Dog Will See You Now

March 26, 2010

Catholic hospital operator Caritas Christi this week agreed to sell itself to Cerberus Capital Management, in a deal Caritas Christi CEO Ralph de la Torre called “good news.” Considering Caritas Christi’s new owner is named after a three-headed dog from hell, I’m sure the company’s 2,000 pensioners, 13,000 employees, and countless patients are praying he’s right. In an internal email obtained by peHUB, de la Torre outlined the benefits of the $830 million deal and specific favorable commitments from Cerberus. The deal is a turnaround of the hospital, which has struggled to compete with large teaching hospitals in its region. For its part, Cerberus has learned a thing or two about getting involved in sticky public turnaround situations. The firm famously took a beating with its failure of an investment in Chrysler. Yet the old devil dogs are back for more. Aside from the dangers involved in buying non-profit, Church-affiliated organization that happens to be in the business of saving peoples’ lives, Caritas Chrisi is also one of the largest employers in the state of Massachusetts. The stakes seem pretty high. And the way Cerberus did this deal may end up really helping, or really, really hurting them in the end. The firm appears to be pre-empting bad press by agreeing to some generous terms as part of the deal. They include: The firm will take on pension obligations for 12,000 employees The firm will keep management in place and allow all patient care and operating decisions to be made by doctors and hospital leadership The hospitals will retain their Catholic identities Cerberus will maintain current employment levels Cerberus will not cut residency programs or change the company’s physician network and relationships with third party vendors and service providers The company will continue its charitable care, community benefits and pastoral care Commitments of at least $400 million in capital projects, including $100 million for immediate capital projects Cerberus will hold the investment for three years. It all sounds reassuring for the company’s employees and patients. But is it reassuring for investors? That’s a lot of rule-following and tight-rope walking for a private equity firm. The challenge seems daunting, because, think about it, when executing a turnaround, what do most firms do? They change management, find “fat” in the form of staff, services and programs and cut it, and change customer and vendor relationships. All things Cerberus is forbidden to do. Failure to execute the turnaround while keeping its promises could generate the ire of the Massachusetts general public and even the Catholic Church. Even I’m terrified of pissing off the Catholic Church, and I went to Catholic School. Cerberus’s investment experience in patient care companies is largely limited to the biotechnology sector. The firm won back a little dignity lost in the Chrysler bru-ha-ha with its $905 million IPO of Talacris Biotherapeutics, a maker of plasma-derived protein therapies formed by Cerberus in 2005. The deal’s close requires regulatory and other governmental approvals, including public hearings to solicit feedback from the community. De la Torre said those would likely take a number of months. He urged employees to “redouble” their efforts during that time. “We can’t for a second assume that the ‘pressure is off’ and that we can declare victory.”

Read the full article →

Westbrook Partners Gets a Deal on Four Seasons

March 22, 2010

Westbrook Partners has moved in to the aid of Millennium Partners, including the San Francisco Four Seasons which was in foreclosure. The deal is seemingly a good one for Westbrook but what this deal signals is that the market was shifting. Banks, which for some time were unfit and/or unsure of what to do with

Read the full article →

“Cash for keys” the newest chapter in housing crisis

March 13, 2010

the exchange, and a pay-off to a second-lien holder, Culver was freed of $120,000 in crushing mortgage debt on the house, said Daurio, who had bought the right to cut the deal when he purchased the mortgage months earlier. The house, after repairs, is

Read the full article →

“Cash for keys” aids home borrowers, investors (Reuters)

March 12, 2010

the exchange, and a pay-off to a second-lien holder, Culver was freed of $120,000 in crushing mortgage debt on the house, said Daurio, who had bought the right to cut the deal when he purchased the mortgage months earlier. The house, after repairs, is

Read the full article →

“Cash for keys” aids home borrowers, investors (Reuters)

March 12, 2010

the exchange, and a pay-off to a second-lien holder, Culver was freed of $120,000 in crushing mortgage debt on the house, said Daurio, who had bought the right to cut the deal when he purchased the mortgage months earlier. The house, after repairs, is

Read the full article →

‘Cash for Keys’ Deals Helping Homeowners Escape Debt

March 12, 2010

the exchange, and a pay-off to a second-lien holder, Culver was freed of $120,000 in crushing mortgage debt on the house, said Daurio, who had bought the right to cut the deal when he purchased the mortgage months earlier. The house, after repairs, is

Read the full article →

“Cash for keys” aids home borrowers, investors

March 12, 2010

the exchange, and a pay-off to a second-lien holder, Culver was freed of $120,000 in crushing mortgage debt on the house, said Daurio, who had bought the right to cut the deal when he purchased the mortgage months earlier. The house, after repairs, is

Read the full article →

“Cash for keys” aids home borrowers, investors

March 12, 2010

the exchange, and a pay-off to a second-lien holder, Culver was freed of $120,000 in crushing mortgage debt on the house, said Daurio, who had bought the right to cut the deal when he purchased the mortgage months earlier. The house, after repairs, is

Read the full article →

Apollo Management Said to Have Agreed to Buy Citigroup Real Estate Unit

March 9, 2010

By Dan Levy and Dakin Campbell March 9 (Bloomberg) — Apollo Management LP agreed to buy Citigroup Inc.’s real estate investment unit, according to a person with knowledge of the deal. The purchase of Citi Property Investors will more than triple New York-based Apollo’s real estate assets, said the person, who asked not to be named because the negotiations are private. The portfolio includes 65 investments in 26 countries with a net asset value of $3.5 billion, the person said. Citigroup, which is 27 percent-owned by the U.S. Treasury Department, has been under pressure from regulators to sell assets to shore up its balance sheet. The New York-based bank valued the property assets at $12.5 billion as of June, according to its Web site. “Apollo is getting a lot of good assets with a lot of good sponsors because I think Citi was good at it,” said Gary Mozer, principal at George Smith Partners, a real estate investment banking firm in Los Angeles. “They were just a victim of the times.” U.S. commercial prices dropped 41 percent from their October 2007 peak through the end of last year, Moody’s Investors Service said Feb. 22. Citi’s property portfolio includes assets in Asia, Europe and the U.S., the person familiar with the deal said. Apollo signed a letter of intent and the deal may take as long as three months to close, the person said. The company plans to keep the Citi Property staff, according to the person. Kelly Nugent , an outside spokeswoman for Apollo, and Shannon Bell , a Citigroup spokeswoman, declined to comment. To contact the reporter on this story: Dan Levy in San Francisco at dlevy13@bloomberg.net ; Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

General Motors Plans to Shut Hummer After China’s Government Blocks Sale

February 25, 2010

By Katie Merx Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) — General Motors Co. said it will close Hummer after Chinese regulators blocked Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. ’s purchase of the brand, whose military-style vehicles clash with government policy. A Tengzhong purchase of Hummer would have bucked China’s promotion of fuel-sipping small cars, which includes cutting the sales tax on vehicles with engine displacements of less than 1.6 liters. The H2 Hummer has a 6.2-liter V-8 engine . “The government still wants overseas acquisitions as long as it fits into its plans,” said Wang Liusheng , Shenzhen-based analyst at China Merchants Securities. “This is a standalone case.” Winding down the brand will take several months, Nick Richards , a GM spokesman, said yesterday. Some of the 3,000 people now employed at Hummer work on other vehicles, so GM doesn’t know how many jobs will be lost, he said. Tengzhong hasn’t provided China’s Ministry of Commerce with a reasonable purchase plan and the government seeks to encourage renewable, green and environmentally friendly energy consumption, Yao Jian , spokesman for the ministry, said at a briefing today in Beijing, without elaborating. Tengzhong’s proposal failed to provide information about its investment model and fund raising plans, Yao said. ‘Doesn’t Fit’ “The Hummer brand was very much a product of its time,” said Aaron Bragman , an analyst at IHS Global Insight in Troy, Michigan. “In today’s much more environmentally conscious world, it’s a brand that just doesn’t fit in.” The company had planned to finance the deal using cash and loans, Chief Executive Officer Yang Yi said in June. He didn’t say how much the SUV-maker would cost. Chinese and Western banks are backing away from funding the deal, the New York Times reported yesterday, citing people close to the transaction. Tengzhong was “unable to obtain clearance of the transaction from the Chinese regulators within the proposed deal time frame,” according to a statement from the Chengdu-based company. The sale was worth $150 million, people familiar with the matter said on Oct. 8, a day before GM and Tengzhong announced a deal. Bridge Parts Tengzhong, a closely held manufacturer whose products include bridge parts, would have vaulted into the passenger-auto industry by buying Hummer. The company had said it wanted to expand the unit into China and other markets outside the U.S., which accounted for about two-thirds of Hummer’s sales under GM. Richards, the Hummer spokesman, said GM would consider “viable alternatives for all or part of the brand during wind down.” GM also had said in December it would shut Saab, only to revive talks and reach an agreement with Spyker Cars NV on Feb. 23. Unloading Hummer was part of GM’s plan to cut its U.S. brands to four from eight after bankruptcy. Absent a last-minute buyer Hummer will join Saturn and Pontiac in being shut as GM focuses on its top-selling domestic vehicle lines. China is encouraging automakers to build more fuel- efficient cars including hybrids to help win sales overseas and to reduce oil imports and pollution at home. Incentives for smaller vehicles combined with rural subsidies boosted nationwide sales in China last year to 13.6 million, helping it supplant the U.S. as the world’s largest auto market. Government Agency A Chinese government agency indicated that it wouldn’t give approval for Tengzhong to buy Hummer, said three people briefed on the deal, who asked not to be identified because the talks weren’t public. GM first said it planned to sell Hummer at its June 2008 annual meeting as record fuel prices prompted the biggest U.S. automaker to focus on developing more fuel-efficient cars. U.S. sales for the unit fell 67 percent last year as the economy faltered, GM slid into a 40-day government-backed bankruptcy and Hummer’s fate was unresolved. Hummer sales began in 1999 with the $140,000 H1, a 7,600- pound SUV (3,400 kilograms) patterned after the all-terrain military vehicle popularized for road use by actor Arnold Schwarzenegger , now California’s governor. The 6,600-pound H2 debuted in 2002, followed by the 4,700-pound H3 in 2005. ‘Rest in pieces’ “Closing Hummer simultaneously improves the health of GM, China and the planet,” said Daniel Becker , director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the Center for Auto Safety, an advocacy group in Washington. “Hummer should rest in pieces.” U.S. deliveries for Hummer peaked at 71,524 in 2006, according to Autodata Corp., an industry researcher based in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. Last year’s total was 9,046. To contact the reporter on this story: Katie Merx in Detroit at kmerx@bloomberg.net ; Stephanie Wong in Shanghai at swong139@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

GM Ending Hummer: Controversial Brand To Be Discontinued (PHOTOS)

February 24, 2010

The AP is reporting that the Hummer brand is no more, after a deal with a Chinese manufacturer fell through. It’s not GM’s first failed deal to sell a brand since it came out of bankruptcy, The New York Times notes . A deal to sell the Saturn line fell apart. After a few false starts, the Dutch company Spyker agreed to buy the Saab brand. (Scroll down for a slideshow retrospective on the Hummer brand.) Here’s the AP: “DETROIT – General Motors Co. said Wednesday it will shut down Hummer after its bid to sell the brand to a Chinese company collapsed. Heavy equipment maker Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machines Co. pulled out of the deal for Hummer, known for its hulking, military-like SUVs, because it was unable to get clearance from Chinese regulators within the proposed deal timeframe, the manufacturer said in a separate statement. GM said it will continue to honor existing Hummer warranties. “We are disappointed that the deal with Tengzhong could not be completed,” said John Smith, GM vice president of corporate planning and alliances. “GM will now work closely with Hummer employees, dealers and suppliers to wind down the business in an orderly and responsible manner.” GM has been trying to sell the loss-making brand for the last year and found a suitor in Tengzhong, but resistance from Chinese regulators created difficulties from the start. As recently as Tuesday private investors were trying to set up an offshore entity in a last-minute effort to complete the acquisition head of a Feb. 28 deadline. Hummer is the second brand after Saturn that GM has failed to sell as part of its restructuring. GM sold Swedish brand Saab to Dutch carmaker Spyker Cars NV earlier this year. Pontiac is being discontinued. GM is focusing its efforts on its four remaining brands: Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac and Buick.” Last month Bloomberg reported that Hummer’s management was expecting a deal to come through. It’s unclear why the deal fell through. Here’s Bloomberg: “While the transaction approval process is not proceeding as quickly as originally forecasted, we’re optimistic about the progress that has occurred to date,” Jim Taylor, Hummer’s chief executive officer, said in an e-mailed statement. “There are more than 3,000 people directly employed in the design, build and sale of Hummer vehicles. As such, we are committed to giving the sale every reasonable opportunity toward a successful conclusion.” Check out these PHOTOS of the Hummer brand:

Read the full article →

Lennar Pays $243M for $3B of Distressed Commercial and Residential …

February 11, 2010

The portfolios include about 5500 distressed residential and commercial real estate loans from 22 failed bank receiverships. Under terms of the deal, Lennar acquired indirectly 40% managing member interests in the limited liability …

Read the full article →

Lewis Put Atop List of CEOs Cited for Financial Crisis With Cuomo Lawsuit

February 4, 2010

By David Mildenberg and Karen Freifeld Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Kenneth D. Lewis , the former leader at Bank of America Corp. who presided over two bailouts, now stands as the highest-ranking official to be accused of wrongdoing in the financial industry’s meltdown. Lewis, chief executive officer until December, and then- Chief Financial Officer Joe Price were accused along with the bank of civil fraud today by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo . They allegedly defrauded investors and taxpayers by not disclosing losses at Merrill Lynch & Co. before shareholders voted on the firm’s pending takeover, and using those losses to extract bailout funds from U.S. regulators, according to Cuomo. Lewis, 62, who retired after criticism of the takeover, joined more than half a dozen peers who left or lost their jobs amid $1.7 trillion of losses tied to the global financial crisis. Among them were Citigroup Inc.’s Charles O. Prince , Merrill Lynch & Co.’s E. Stanley O’Neal , Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s Richard S. Fuld and Wachovia Corp.’s G. Kennedy Thompson — none of whom was charged with wrongdoing. Lawyers for Lewis, Price and Charlotte, North Carolina- based Bank of America said Cuomo erred in bringing the lawsuit. Cuomo’s action is “badly misguided,” said a statement from Mary Jo White , the former federal prosecutor who is defending Lewis. “There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the allegations.” Industry CEOs previously singled out by enforcement officials included Angelo Mozilo , the former CEO of subprime lender Countrywide Financial Corp. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Mozilo of civil fraud in June, 2009, saying he publicly reassured investors about Countrywide’s loans while expressing doubts internally about their quality, and selling about $140 million of common shares. Cuomo’s Case Mozilo has said he didn’t do anything improper, and the case is pending. Bank of America, ranked first in the U.S. by assets and deposits, bought Countrywide in 2008, and Mozilo didn’t stay with the combined firm. Cuomo moved against Bank of America as the SEC announced a separate settlement today of claims that the Charlotte, North Carolina-based company misled shareholders about bonuses and losses at New York-based Merrill. The bank agreed to pay $150 million and strengthen corporate governance; no executives were cited individually. Cuomo’s case concerns events leading up to the January 2009 purchase of Merrill Lynch, a deal that Lewis crafted in September 2008 as Lehman Brothers collapsed and regulators were trying to save the rest of the financial system. According to Cuomo’s complaint , the bank failed to tell its own investors that losses at Merrill Lynch continued to pile up before they voted to approve the deal, and didn’t disclose plans for the brokerage to pay $3.57 billion in bonuses “for the worst year in Merrill’s history.” MAC Attack The bank then used those losses , which ultimately surpassed $15 billion for the fourth quarter of 2008, to persuade federal regulators to provide additional bailout funds, the complaint said. Lewis and Price did that by making “an empty threat to terminate the merger” to abort the deal by citing a clause concerning “material adverse changes,” the complaint said. Lewis, Price, 48, and Brian Moynihan , 50, who has since become CEO, “calculated that if they threatened to call a MAC to get out of the deal, the federal government would counter with more taxpayer funds out of a concern for the greater economy,” the complaint said. Moynihan, who succeeded Lewis on Jan. 1, isn’t under investigation in Cuomo’s case and has been “candid” with the attorney general’s office, according to David Markowitz , Cuomo’s special deputy for investor protection. Moynihan was the bank’s general counsel in December 2008 when it negotiated with U.S. officials for $20 billion of bailout funds. Price has since been named head of the consumer unit at Bank of America. Martin Act Cuomo’s office “has no intention” of targeting Moynihan, Bank of America spokesman Robert Stickler said. “They believe he was not complicit in their scenario, which is based on snippets of facts taken out of context and at times embellished.” Bank of America fell 78 cents, or 5 percent, to $14.75 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading . They’ve tripled in the past 12 months. Cuomo based his civil case on New York’s Martin Act, a securities law that permits civil and criminal penalties, and said the investigation was aided by Neil Barofsky , special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. “Ken Lewis doesn’t live in New York, and if you are running for office like Mr. Cuomo, picking on a New Yorker such as Dick Fuld or someone else could be much more difficult,” said Ray Groth , adjunct professor at Duke University’s business school and a former First Boston Corp. investment banker. “Ken is very low on the schmooze factor and politicians love to be schmoozed, flattered and catered to.” Merger’s Aftermath Analysts Richard Bove of Rochdale Securities Inc. and Betsy Graseck of Morgan Stanley have praised the Merrill acquisition for diversifying Bank of America’s income and insulating the company from losses on consumer loans. Mark Calabria , director of financial regulatory studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, said Cuomo’s action contradicts statements from the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department. “There is an argument for saying investors were misled, but all evidence indicates the Fed and Treasury strong-armed Mr. Lewis into not saying anything,” Calabria said. The separate SEC settlement still has to be approved by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff . Last year, Rakoff called the SEC’s initial settlement, which focused on the bank’s bonus disclosures, neither fair nor reasonable and questioned why the bank’s executives and lawyers weren’t sued. The agency said it lacked evidence to bring claims against specific individuals. To contact the reporter on this story: David Mildenberg in Charlotte at dmildenberg@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

Lewis, Bank of America Sued by Cuomo for Fraud as SEC Settlement Reached

February 4, 2010

By Karen Freifeld and David Scheer Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Former Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis was sued by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for defrauding investors and the government when buying Merrill Lynch & Co. The bank agreed to pay $150 million to settle a related lawsuit by U.S. regulators. Cuomo also sued the bank’s former chief financial officer Joe Price and the bank itself for not disclosing about $16 billion in losses Merrill had incurred before it was bought by Bank of America in an effort to get the merger approved. Afterwards, Lewis demanded government bailout funds, Cuomo said. “We believe the bank management understated the Merrill Lynch losses to shareholders, then they overstated their ability to terminate their agreement to secure $20 billion of TARP money, and that is just a fraud,” Cuomo said today at a telephone press conference. “Bank of America and its officials defrauded the government and the taxpayers at a very difficult time.” Cuomo is pursuing individuals at the bank while the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has declined to do so. The suit is being filed under the Martin Act, a New York securities law that permits both civil and criminal penalties. The $150 million SEC settlement still has to be approved by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff. Last year, Rakoff called the SEC’s initial settlement, which focused on the bank’s bonus disclosures, neither fair nor reasonable and questioned why the bank’s executives and lawyers weren’t sued. The agency said it lacked evidence to bring claims against specific individuals. SEC Coordination Cuomo said he coordinated efforts with the SEC. “Our case will bring individuals to justice and will make a point to people that this is a very serious matter,” he said. “When you settle a case the way the SEC is settling today, the upside is you implement immediate regulatory reforms.” Bank of America , based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is required to take seven steps in the next three years to bolster corporate governance and internal controls. Last month, the SEC expanded its claims against the bank, accusing it of failing to disclose Merrill Lynch’s mounting losses before holding a shareholder vote on the acquisition. The proposed fine would be distributed back to harmed shareholders, the SEC said today. The SEC settlement “addresses the judge’s concerns of penalizing shareholders so it’s likely to pass muster,” said Peter Henning , a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. “At the same time, it’s hard to show any monetary damage to shareholders at this point because the Merrill deal has turned out to be a good acquisition for the bank.” Lewis Retirement Neil Barofsky , special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, also joined in the investigation. Bank of America was criticized by lawmakers and investors last year for allegedly leaving the public in the dark about Merrill Lynch’s mounting losses and potential bonus payments while seeking to complete the takeover. The uproar helped spur Lewis’s retirement last year. The conduct of Brian Moynihan , the bank’s current chief executive, is not under investigation, said David Markowitz , Cuomo’s special deputy attorney general for investor protection. Moynihan, who became general counsel in the middle of events, was candid with Cuomo’s office in the probe, Markowitz said. Asked whether negotiations with Lewis, Price and Bank of America broke down, the Attorney General’s office said they try to settle cases, though it doesn’t always work. According to the complaint, Lewis and his lieutenants Moynihan and Price calculated that if they threatened “to get out of the deal, the federal government would counter with more taxpayer funds out of a concern for the greater economy.” The U.S. injected $45 billion into Bank of America through the purchase of preferred shares, including $20 billion approved after the acquisition in January 2009 to keep the deal from collapsing. The bank redeemed the shares in December. Bank Is Disappointed “We find it regrettable and are disappointed that the NYAG has chosen to file these charges, which we believe are totally without merit,” the bank said in a statement. “In fact, the SEC had access to the same evidence as the NYAG and concluded that there was no basis to enter either a charge of fraud or to charge individuals. The company and these executives will vigorously defend ourselves.” Lawyers for Lewis and Price denied wrongdoing. “The allegation that Mr. Price deliberately caused Bank of America to withhold from shareholders information they were entitled to know is utterly false,” said William H. Jeffress Jr. and Julia E. Guttman of Baker Botts LLP in Washington, in a statement. Misguided Decision “The decision by Mr. Cuomo to sue Bank of America, Mr. Lewis and other executives in connection with BofA’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch is a badly misguided decision without support in the facts or the law,” said Mary Jo White of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP in New York, who represents Lewis. “There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the allegations by the Attorney General.” Bank of America agreed to buy Merrill on Sept. 15 after just 25 hours of due diligence, according to the suit. When the board of directors met that day to approve the transaction, they thought they were going to buy Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the suit says. Cuomo said Bank of America scheduled a shareholder vote to approve its plan to buy Merrill on Dec. 5, 2008. By that date, Merrill incurred losses of more than $16 billion, Cuomo said. Bank of America’s management, including Lewis and Price, knew of the losses and knew that more were coming, Cuomo said. After the merger was approved, Lewis told federal regulators the bank couldn’t complete the deal without a taxpayer bailout because of accelerated losses from Merrill, Cuomo said. However, between the time the shareholders approved the deal and the time Lewis sought the bailout, Merrill’s losses only increased by $1.4 billion, Cuomo said. Greed, Hubris “The conduct of Bank of America, through its top management, was motivated by self-interest, greed, hubris, and a palpable sense that the normal rules of fair play did not apply to them,” Cuomo said in the lawsuit. “Bank of America’s management thought of itself as too big to play by the rules and, just as disturbingly, too big to tell the truth.” The suit, filed in New York state Supreme Court in Manhattan, seeks monetary relief and injunctions. Markowitz said the suit came after 75 days of testimony and the review of more than a million documents. He said no monetary demand has yet been made. The suit claims Bank of America received more than $20 billion in taxpayer aid as a result of their misleading efforts. Cuomo’s statement said the bank can’t explain why they didn’t disclose the losses to shareholders though the merger “would have threatened the bank’s very existence if there had been no taxpayer bailout.” Mayopoulos Fired Cuomo also claims management failed to disclose to shareholders it was allowing Merrill to pay $3.57 billion in bonuses. Nor did the bank’s management tell the bank’s lawyers about the extent of Merrill’s losses before the shareholder vote. Cuomo’s suit also alleges the bank’s former general counsel, Timothy Mayopoulos , was fired after he confronted Price after the shareholder vote when he learned of Merrill’s losses. Cuomo says Mayopoulos was intentionally misled beforehand. Mayopoulos was replaced by Moynihan, then head of Bank of America’s Global Corporate Investment Bank, the complaint says. Wachtell Lipton On Nov. 13, when Price knew of at least $5 billion in after-tax losses, Mayopoulous and lawyers from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the bank’s outside law firm, decided to disclose the losses, the suit says. However, the decision was reversed and Wachtell’s role was “marginalized,” the suit says. Wachtell partner Theodore N. Mirvis declined to comment. The suit also alleges the bank never intended to renegotiate or terminate the merger based on the material adverse change clause in the deal. Renegotiation was impossible, they knew from outside counsel, “because public knowledge of the endangered deal would likely destroy Merrill,” the suit says. Moynihan, who acted as general counsel for Bank of America for about six weeks, had not practiced law in 15 years and had an inactive bar membership, the complaint says. Robert Stickler , a spokesman for Bank of America, said Cuomo’s office has “no intention” of charging Moynihan “because they believe he was not complicit in their scenario, which is based on snippets of facts taken out of context and at times embellished in order to concoct a reasonable scenario.” The case is People of State of New York v. Bank of America, State Supreme Court (Manhattan). To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Freifeld in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan at kfreifeld@bloomberg.net and; David Scheer in Washington at dscheer@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Loses Its AAA Rating

February 4, 2010

OMAHA, Neb. — Standard & Poor’s has followed through on its warning and lowered Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s long-term credit rating Thursday as the Omaha firm readies to acquire Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. The ratings agency lowered Berkshire’s rating one notch to “AA+” from “AAA,” its highest designation. S&P also removed the ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed with negative implications in November, and called the outlook stable. Berkshire Hathaway officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. S&P said it expects a significant part of the cash portion to come from Berkshire Hathaway’s core insurance operations, and the $26.3 billion railroad purchase will reduce the liquidity of the company’s insurance operations. Shareholders of BNSF are scheduled to vote on the proposed acquisition Feb. 11. The deal is expected to close by Feb. 15. “The rating actions are based on our view that Berkshire’s overall capital adequacy, as well as that of its insurance operations, has weakened to levels no longer consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating and is not expected to return to extremely strong levels in the near term,” Standard & Poor’s credit analyst John Iten said in a statement. “Furthermore, we expect that the consolidated liquidity position of Berkshire will be reduced from extremely strong historical levels as a result of the acquisition.” In the ratings agency’s view, investment risk remains very high, “compounding the need for extremely strong capital and liquidity given potential investment volatility.” With the downgrade, just four U.S. industrial companies maintain S&P’s “AAA” rating: Microsoft Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Johnson & Johnson and Automatic Data Processing Inc. More than a dozen U.S. financial institutions, including the Knights of Columbus and New York Life Insurance Co., hold the highest designation. The acquisition of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the nation’s second-largest railroad, would be the biggest ever for Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway investment company. Berkshire Hathaway, based in Omaha, Neb., owns a 22 percent stake in Burlington Northern and would buy up the rest under the deal. Berkshire shareholders last month approved splitting the company’s Class B shares 50-for-1 as part of the deal. The split will enable Berkshire to offer even small Burlington Northern shareholders Berkshire stock as part of the acquisition of the nation’s second-largest railroad. The stock split also made Berkshire’s Class B stock much more affordable, at roughly $69 per share, which is expected to increase Berkshire’s liquidity. The Class A shares, which remain the most expensive U.S. stock at more than $100,000, won’t be split. The Class A shares hold more voting rights than the Class B shares. Berkshire Hathaway also filed documents Thursday indicating that it plans to sell $8 billion of debt to finance the acquisition using a combination of fixed-rate and floating-rate notes of various maturities. The Class B shares fell $1.75, or 2.4 percent, to $72.61 in afternoon trading, losing 16 cents more in after-hours trading.

Read the full article →

Yahoo Sells HotJobs To Monster For $225 Million

February 3, 2010

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — Yahoo is selling its online help-wanted site, HotJobs, to rival Monster Worldwide for $225 million in cash. The deal announced Wednesday reflects HotJobs’ diminishing value as the high unemployment rate undercuts the demand for help-wanted advertising. Yahoo bought HotJobs for $439 million in 2002. The sale is part of Yahoo’s effort to jettison services that aren’t doing well or don’t fit with its focus on news, entertainment and communications. As part of the deal, Monster.com will provide Yahoo with job listings and other employment content. Monster hopes to take control of HotJobs between June and October.

Read the full article →

Ticketmaster, Live Nation Merger Approved: Will It Lead To Lower Ticket Prices?

January 25, 2010

LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Justice Department cleared the way Monday for concert promoter Live Nation and ticket-seller Ticketmaster to combine after imposing major conditions meant to create stronger competitors and lower ticket prices for consumers. Shares in both companies rose sharply in trading after reports surfaced that the merger would be approved. The rally continued following the afternoon announcement. Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney said Ticketmaster would have to license its ticketing software to competitor Anschutz Entertainment Group Inc. and sell its subsidiary Paciolan to Comcast Corp. subsidiary Comcast-Spectacor. Paciolan sells tens of millions of tickets every year, she said. The conditions would result in two large, vertically integrated competitors – AEG and Comcast-Spectacor – that would vie for ticketing contracts with the merged entity of Live Nation Inc. and Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. The merged entity would also be under a 10-year court order prohibiting it from retaliating against venues that choose to sign ticket-selling contracts with competitors. Consumer groups, ticket resellers and some politicians had expressed concerns that the combined company would control too much of the concert experience. Varney announced the merger conditions on Monday, saying the deal as proposed would have been “anticompetitive.” Both companies agreed to the conditions, but a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., would need to approve the settlement. Canadian regulators and 17 state attorneys general also signed onto the deal. “It’s going to benefit competition and benefit consumers,” Varney said. “Generally when you see robust competition, you would expect to see prices coming down.” Live Nation Chief Executive Officer Michael Rapino, who will be the CEO of the merged company, said that “with this resolution the playing field is competitive and broader. “We believe that this merger will now create a more diversified company with a great selling platform for artists and a stronger financial profile that will drive improved shareholder value over the long term.” Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff called the resolution “a great win for fans.” Live Nation, which is based in Los Angeles, and Ticketmaster, which has headquarters nearby in West Hollywood, have said the merger will streamline their operations, ensuring their survival. They say music fans also can benefit through lower ticket prices because the merged company can earn money in new ways. Shares in Ticketmaster rose $2.56, or 19.3 percent, to $15.86 in afternoon trading, while shares in Live Nation went up $1.67, or 18.2 percent, to $10.83.

Read the full article →

Kraft Deal Cements Wasserstein Legacy, Fees for Lazard

January 19, 2010

By Brett Foley, Jacqueline Simmons and Zachary R. Mider Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Kraft Foods Inc. ’s takeover of Cadbury Plc seals the legacy of Bruce Wasserstein , the Lazard Ltd. dealmaker who died a month after Kraft Chief Executive Officer Irene Rosenfeld made her first bid in September. Kraft, the world’s second-largest food company, made its bid with help from a team of advisers led by Wasserstein, a pioneer of modern M&A and Lazard’s chief executive officer. Cadbury accepted a higher 11.9 billion-pound ($19.7 billion) bid from Kraft earlier today. “This deal will be a monument to Bruce,” said Philip Keevil, a former Lazard banker who is now a senior partner at Compass Advisers LLP. “Bruce has always taken a view of, let’s get the client signed, make the bid and get him up to price.” Lazard and Kraft’s advisers Deutsche Bank AG, Citigroup Inc. and Centerview Partners LLP, may get paid as much as $58 million in fees, according to estimates from Freeman & Co., a New York-based research firm. Cadbury may pay Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and UBS AG as much as $56 million, Freeman said. The figures exclude fees for helping to finance the deal. Mergers and acquisitions dropped about 37 percent last year to $1.75 trillion, cutting fees to investment banks. Kraft’s offer is the largest unsolicited takeover since Roche Holding AG’s $44 billion bid for Genentech Inc., completed in March 2009. It would rank among the largest 10 in the past year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Trident, Tang “This is a windfall for Kraft’s bankers, given the financing and associated fees,” Keevil said. “Cadbury’s advisers would have been paid well for a job well done” even excluding the financing element, said Keevil, who worked on a number of transactions with Wasserstein, starting with Canada- based Seagram Co.’s hostile offer for St. Joe Minerals Corp., a mining company, in 1979. The takeover would create a company with about $50 billion in annual sales, adding Cadbury’s Trident gum and Creme Eggs to Kraft’s Oreo cookies, Toblerone chocolate and Tang drinks. Cadbury investors would get 840 pence a share, including 500 pence in cash and the rest in stock, Northfield, Illinois- based Kraft said in a statement today. Cadbury would also pay its shareholders an additional 10-pence dividend once the offer becomes unconditional. The revised bid is about 9 percent higher than Kraft’s initial bid of 769 pence a share. Kraft’s Rosenfeld increased the offer after Cadbury said the original bid was “derisory.” Kraft said on Sept. 7 it would pursue a hostile takeover of Cadbury after the maker of Dairy Milk chocolate spurned its approach. Goldman Sachs, UBS Wasserstein personally led the team advising Rosenfeld. Joining him were Robert Pruzan , a longtime colleague of Wasserstein’s, who is now with Centerview; Leon Kalvaria at Citigroup; and Nigel Meek and James Agnew at Deutsche Bank. Wasserstein died Oct. 14 at the age of 61 after being hospitalized for an irregular heartbeat, and his team at Lazard — including Antonio Weiss , Peter Kiernan, Jeffrey Rosen and William Rucker — stayed on the deal. Cadbury turned to Goldman Sachs’s Karen Cook , Morgan Stanley’s Simon Robey and UBS’s Nick Reid . “The bread and butter for banks going forward will be the advisory and financing of strategic transactions,” said former Citigroup Inc. managing director Peter Hahn , who now lectures on corporate finance at London’s Cass Business School. The Kraft- Cadbury deal involves new money “where the banks can make fees from issuing shares, debt and potentially” asset sales. Hershey, Ferrero Kraft’s banks helped arrange as much as 5.5 billion pounds of a 364-day bridge loan to help fund its bid, according to a Nov. 9 regulatory filing. The 5.5 billion-pound bridge loan will cost Kraft at least 96.25 million pounds a year in fees if the amount is fully drawn, according to a Dec. 4 regulatory filing. The loan may be refinanced with new debt, a sale of shares or with convertible bonds, according to the filing. Kraft also included a provision in the bridge loan agreement to incur as much as $3 billion of additional debt that can be used for the acquisition, according to the December filing. Kraft’s lenders included Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA, Credit Suisse Group AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Societe Generale SA and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA. Hershey Co. of the U.S. is unlikely to try to top Kraft’s offer, three people familiar with the matter said. The company and the charitable trust that controls it have been getting advice from Bank of America Corp., Byron Trott’s BDT Capital Partners, FBR Capital Markets Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Perella Weinberg Partners LP. Ferrero SpA, the Italian maker of Tic Tacs and Nutella spread, decided not to take part in a bid for Cadbury, Il Sole 24 Ore reported. The Italian chocolate maker was advised by Mediobanca SpA and Rothschild. To contact the reporters on this story: Brett Foley in London at bfoley8@bloomberg.net ; Jacqueline Simmons in Paris at jackiem@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

Ackman Buys 2% of Kraft, Urges Rosenfeld to Use More Cash in Cadbury Offer

January 15, 2010

By Christine Richard and Zachary R. Mider Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) — William Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management LP bought a 2 percent stake in Kraft Foods Inc. and is urging management to pursue a bid for Cadbury Plc that minimizes the stock component of the offer. The stake of at least 32 million shares, valued at about $932 million based on yesterday’s closing price , will be disclosed in a filing with U.K. regulators on Jan. 18, Ackman said in an interview today. Kraft Chief Executive Officer Irene Rosenfeld has until Jan. 19 to modify Kraft’s current 10.9 billion-pound ($17.7 billion) stock-and-cash offer for the Uxbridge, England-based confectioner. “We think very highly of Irene Rosenfeld and her business plan. We think this deal makes tremendous strategic sense,” Ackman said, adding that Kraft shares are undervalued. “The more Kraft stock they issue, the less interesting this deal is. Fortunately, the seller also prefers cash.” Ackman is the second high-profile Kraft investor to weigh in on the Northfield, Illinois-based food company’s offer. Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Kraft’s biggest shareholder, said on Jan. 5 that Kraft’s stock is undervalued. To contact the reporter on this story: Zachary R. Mider in New York at zmider1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

SEC Hits Bank Of America With New Charges Over Merrill Bonuses

January 13, 2010

NEW YORK — Federal regulators sued Bank of America Corp. on Tuesday, accusing the company of failing to disclose “staggering financial losses” at Merrill Lynch before shareholders approved a combination of the companies. The lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in U.S. District Court in Manhattan sought an order requiring Bank of America to pay a civil penalty for not telling shareholders it was losing $15.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008. Bank of America spokesman Robert Stickler called the charges “totally without merit.” He said the company believes it provided sufficient and appropriate disclosure to shareholders prior to their vote approving the combination. “We look forward to presenting the facts in court,” Stickler said. “What we would note is that there were no charges against individuals and no charges of fraud. We were pleased with that.” The SEC said the information about the losses should have been announced when it was learned after the companies publicly announced their deal in September 2008. They did not obtain shareholder approval until three months later. Federal laws governing such transactions require that losses be revealed if they were not already reflected in Merrill’s quarterly reports or other filings. The SEC and Bank of America, which is based in Charlotte, N.C., are already scheduled to go to trial March 1 after the SEC previously accused the bank of failing to disclose billions of dollars in bonuses paid at Merrill Lynch after the acquisition was completed a year ago. In the new lawsuit, the SEC said Bank of America “learned of staggering losses at Merrill” in October and November of 2008. The agency said the bank consulted its lawyers who “erroneously and negligently concluded that no disclosure was necessary because the projected quarterly loss was within the range of losses that Merrill had sustained in the preceding five quarters.” Those losses included a $4.5 billion loss by Merrill in October 2008. The deal was approved by shareholders at a Dec. 5, 2008 meeting. Several days later, Bank of America received an updated report reflecting a forecasted net loss of more than $12 billion at Merrill, the SEC said. It said the full fourth quarter 2008 results at Merrill were announced on Jan. 16, 2009, nearly six weeks after the shareholder vote and two weeks after the deal had closed. A day after net loss of $15.3 billion for the quarter was reported, Bank of America stock dropped by nearly 30 percent, the SEC noted. Bank of America shares fell 72 cents, or 4.3 percent, to $16.21 in afternoon trading.

Read the full article →

Vasella’s Persistence Pays Off as Novartis Gains Alcon’s Faster Growth

January 5, 2010

By Kerry Capell and Dermot Doherty Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) — Novartis AG Chief Executive Officer Daniel Vasella spent years persuading fellow Swiss company Nestle SA to part with Alcon Inc. for the eye-care business’s higher growth rate. His persistence has paid off. Novartis this week announced a plan to acquire the 75 percent of Alcon that it doesn’t own for $38.3 billion. The drugmaker will purchase Nestle’s 52 percent stake, and offered to buy out the minority shareholders who own the rest. Vasella said in a Jan. 4 telephone interview that he persevered “off and on for several years” before Nestle Chairman Peter Brabeck- Letmathe agreed to the deal. Acquiring Alcon gives Novartis a third of the $26 billion global eye-care market as Vasella seeks to replace revenue that will be lost when patents on hypertension drug Diovan and the Gleevec leukemia treatment, the company’s best sellers, start to expire in 2012. He estimates that the global eye-care business will increase at 7 percent a year through 2015, more than the 5 percent growth forecast for prescription medicines, as the world’s aging population suffers from glaucoma and cataracts. “Vasella has developed a reputation for prescience,” said Karl Heinz Koch , a Helvea SA analyst in Zurich. “Vasella recognized relatively early the importance of moving away from commodity-type pharmaceutical model where one white pill fits all.” Drug Setbacks The move beyond prescription medicines will help Vasella temper setbacks in the company’s drug development. U.S. health regulators in July asked for more information on experimental meningitis vaccine Menveo, delaying a product that Merrill Lynch analysts once estimated would generate $1 billion in annual sales. In 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration delayed approval for the Galvus diabetes pill, pulled the irritable bowel treatment Zelnorm and rejected the Prexige painkiller. The setbacks led Vasella to replace the management of three of four business units in October 2008, and announce as many as 3,000 job cuts . Alcon, which generates about half of its sales from devices and products used in eye surgery, also sells over-the-counter contact lens products, eye drops and vitamins. That will allow Novartis to “diversify risk,” Vasella has said. As recently as May, Vasella said in an interview with Bloomberg News that he was uncertain whether Basel, Switzerland- based Novartis would exercise the option because Alcon’s stock plunged since he struck the original deal in April 2008. Back then, Novartis paid $143.18 a share for the initial 25 percent stake, and agreed to pay as much as $181 for the rest starting Jan. 1. Alcon soared above $175 on the New York Stock Exchange within four months of the deal being announced. Alcon Plunges In October 2008, Huenenberg, Switzerland-based Alcon lowered its sales forecast, citing the strength of the dollar and slower-than-expected drug sales in the U.S. The stock lost almost a third of its value and fell below $68 the next month. Alcon shares surged 40 percent in the second half of 2009 as investors speculated that Novartis would acquire the stake owned by Nestle, the world’s largest food company, and offer to buy out the public shares, according to FTN Equity Capital Markets Corp. While Novartis had until July 2011 to exercise the option, Vasella said in the Jan. 4 interview that the decision to move ahead was made last month at a strategy meeting of the company’s board. “We always knew we would exercise the call before it lapsed but we decided to move quickly,” Vasella said. “Alcon was a perfect fit for our portfolio but it took time, and money, to convince them to divest.” Alcon Offer Under the terms of the call option that Novartis exercised Jan. 4, Novartis will buy Vevey, Switzerland-based Nestle’s stake for an average of $180 a share, or a total of $28.1 billion. Novartis also offered to pay 2.8 of its own shares for each remaining Alcon share held by the public. Based on today’s closing price, the offer values Alcon’s public shares at $146.80 each, or $10.2 billion. Vasella is taking a hard stance with the minority shareholders, saying Nestle deserved a higher price because that stake gave Novartis control of the company. Alcon investors say Vasella is short-changing them by offering 18 percent less than what the drugmaker is paying Nestle. “It really took me by surprise,” James O’Leary , manager of the $37 million Touchstone International Growth Fund. “I always thought Novartis was a classier company than that.” O’Leary, whose fund owns Alcon, Novartis and Nestle shares, said he expects Novartis to raise the offer to at least $164 a share. Possible Challenge Alcon’s independent directors are seeking an opinion from merger adviser Greenhill & Co. on whether the price is fair. Minority shareholders can challenge the deal in Swiss court once the merger closes, Larry Biegelsen , an analyst at Wells Fargo Advisors LLC in New York, wrote in a Jan. 4 report investors. Even so, Denise Anderson , an analyst for Sit Investment Associates Inc. in Minneapolis, praised the deal put together by Vasella and Novartis’ 64-year-old chief financial officer, Raymund Breu . “Vasella and Breu have been a team for quite some time and both are innovative in the way they structure deals,” she said. “That they might somehow pay less for a substantial part of the company is quite innovative.” For the 56-year-old Vasella, buying Alcon is the latest move in his 14-year quest to transform Novartis from a maker of chemical dyes and agricultural products into a wide-ranging health-care business. CEO Doctor Vasella worked as a doctor for eight years before joining Sandoz AG, which merged with Ciba-Geigy to form Novartis. He became president of the new company and became CEO in 1999. When he took over, the company generated only 45 percent of revenue from health care. He shed the agrichemicals business, sold Novartis’ medical nutrition and Gerber baby food businesses to Nestle for $8 billion, and spent about $59 billion on acquisitions over the last five years to create a company that encompasses prescription drugs, vaccines, over-the-counter products and generic medicines. The model has already been proven by New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson , which sells prescription drugs, medical devices, and consumer products such as the Tylenol painkiller and Listerine mouthwash. “He has a very clear strategy,” said James Shannon , CEO and president of San Francisco-based biotechnology company Cerimon Pharmaceuticals Inc. who was the head of global development at Novartis until 2008. “It is not for today or tomorrow but for five to 10 years from now.” Generic Drugs Vasella was one of the first CEOs of a global drugmaker to invest in generic medicines, building the company’s Sandoz unit into the second-largest maker of copycat drugs in the world. In 2005, Novartis spent $13 billion to add generic-drugmakers Hexal AG and Eon Labs Inc. to solidify its business, which generated $3.5 billion in sales for the first half of 2009. “Novartis was earlier than most in recognizing the interest of generics and it stuck to consumer health-care when others” didn’t, said Luis Correia , an analyst at Clariden Leu in Zurich. Alcon bolsters Novartis’ existing Ciba Vision contact lens unit and Lucentis, the company’s drug for age-related macular degeneration, a leading cause of blindness in the elderly. Novartis also gains a stronger foothold in emerging markets where Alcon reported $1 billion in 2008 sales. Vasella said an estimated 60 million people in China suffering from cataracts, so emerging markets are a major opportunity for future growth. Alcon Benefits Together, the company’s product range will span 70 percent of the eye-care market, Vasella said. And unlike Novartis’ prescription drugs business, which faces pricing pressures as insurers and governments worldwide seek to rein in costs, he said many of Alcon’s customers pay out of pocket for over-the- counter products and procedures including laser eye surgery. “Strategically it makes sense to diversify into other health-care areas to stabilize earnings and reduce the risks,” said Helvea’s Koch. The Novartis CEO said in the interview that he expects any acquisitions he does over the next three years will be smaller than Alcon and aimed at accelerating the company’s growth. “Whether Vasella has been farsighted or not, time will tell, but he certainly sticks to what he sees as correct,” said Romain Pasche , a fund manager at Vontobel Asset Management in Zurich who owns Novartis shares. To contact the reporter on this story: Kerry Capell in London at kpacell@bloomberg.net ; Dermot Doherty in Geneva at ddoherty9@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Sam Zell Must Face Tribune Employees’ Suit Over Pension Plan, Judge Rules

December 19, 2009

By Andrew M. Harris Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) — Sam Zell , the real estate investor who took the Chicago-based Tribune Co. private in an $8.3 billion stock buyback two years ago, must face an employee lawsuit claiming he knowingly violated federal pension laws. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in Chicago rejected Zell’s request to dismiss the suit filed last year. The employees accuse Zell of working with board members and others who allegedly breached their fiduciary duty to the workers. The judge, in a ruling posted Dec. 17 on the court’s Web site, said that Zell helped engineer the transaction that left Tribune with almost $13 billion in debt even if he wasn’t responsible to the Employee Stock Ownership Plan that privatized the newspaper and broadcasting company. The company , owner of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times newspapers, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year. The employee stock ownership plan that acquired the shares in the buyback is a federally protected pension plan. As many as 10,000 workers may have lost money as a result of how the shareholder buyout was executed, said Daniel Feinberg, an attorney for the employees in Oakland, California. While only six workers are named as plaintiffs in the suit, he said he will seek class-action certification to sue on behalf of other employees. ‘Misguided’ Deal “This deal was misguided from the very beginning,” Feinberg said yesterday in a phone interview. “It was obvious from the start that this deal had a huge risk of insolvency because of the amount of debt.” Pallmeyer dismissed claims against several Tribune board members, ruling they had delegated their fiduciary duty to Greatbanc Trust Co. The judge said in her ruling that Greatbanc, the trustee for the employee plan, must face the lawsuit. Terry Holt, a spokeswoman for Zell, declined to comment. Two lawyers for the Tribune and other defendants, David Bradford and Craig Martin, were said by their office to be travelling yesterday and didn’t immediately respond to e-mail messages seeking comment. The case is Neil v. Zell, 08cv6833, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew M. Harris in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Citigroup Says Abu Dhabi Wants Out of Accord to Buy $7.5 Billion of Stock

December 16, 2009

By Dakin Campbell Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) — Citigroup Inc. said the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is seeking to end an agreement to buy the bank’s stock for more than eight times its current price, or to receive more than $4 billion in damages if the deal is upheld. ADIA, as one of the world’s top two sovereign wealth funds is known, filed a claim alleging “fraudulent misrepresentations” tied to its agreement to buy $7.5 billion of common stock, Citigroup said yesterday in a statement. The claims have no merit, Citigroup said. ADIA would buy the shares for $31.83 to $37.24 apiece under the agreement. The New York-based bank announced this week that it would sell common shares to help repay $20 billion in bailout funds to the U.S. government. “It is going to be tough” for ADIA to evade losses tied to the agreement, said Eric Barden , chief investment officer of Barden Capital Management in Austin, Texas. “They are pushing the limit in terms of how much they think Citigroup is willing to subsidize a mistaken investment,” he said in a telephone interview. Citigroup shares declined 89 percent since the end of November 2007. They fell 14 cents to $3.56 yesterday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Citigroup spokesman Stephen Cohen declined to comment, as did a spokesman for ADIA. “Citi believes the allegations are entirely without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously,” according to the statement. Equity Agreement ADIA purchased Citigroup equity units in November 2007, the bank said. The units require Citigroup to remarket junior- ranking debt securities, then proceeds would be used to buy Citigroup common stock in four equal installments starting next March, according to a 2007 statement. The bank, the only major U.S. lender still dependent on what the government calls “exceptional financial assistance,” said this week it will sell at least $20.5 billion of equity and debt to exit the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The U.S. Treasury Department also plans to sell as much as $5 billion of common stock it holds in the company, and will unload the rest of its stake during the next six to 12 months. The company also plans to substitute “substantial common stock” for cash compensation, Citigroup said in a statement on Dec. 14. The U.S. government agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal to repay TARP, the Washington Post reported today, citing an exception to long-standing tax rules issued by the Internal Revenue Service on Dec. 11. The IRS exception will allow Citigroup to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors, the Washington Post report said. ‘Unhappy’ Jacob Frenkel , a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer now in private practice, said “it is impossible to draw any conclusions” about how the ADIA claim may affect Citigroup’s plans. “Whenever an investor is unhappy with an investment the natural thought is to sue,” he said in a telephone interview. “The goal may not be the damages they claim. It could well be as simple as renegotiating the terms of the securities.” ADIA, created in 1976, managed $328 billion at the end of last year, according to estimates by economists at the Council on Foreign Relations. To contact the reporter on this story: Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Citigroup Gets Massive Tax Break In Deal with IRS

December 15, 2009

The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis. The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to longstanding tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and the few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain $38 billion in tax breaks…

Read the full article →

Oracle Edges Toward EU Approval of Sun Deal After Offering MySQL Remedies

December 14, 2009

By Matthew Newman Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) — Oracle Corp. , the world’s second- largest software maker, moved a step closer to getting European Union approval for its planned $7.4 billion purchase of Sun Microsystems Inc. after addressing EU competition concerns about its acquisition of Sun’s MySQL database product. The European Commission , the EU’s competition authority, has threatened to block the deal because of concerns that Oracle might be able to eliminate MySQL as a competitor, according to an EU document. Oracle said in a statement today that it will boost investment in MySQL and is committed to keeping MySQL’s open-source licensing regime. The commission said in a statement that it welcomed Oracle’s commitments. European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said in the statement that she’s “optimistic that the case will have a satisfactory outcome.” Oracle, based in Redwood City, California, received U.S. antitrust approval for the deal in August. The commission began an in-depth review of the takeover in September and is scheduled to rule by Jan. 27. The probe followed lobbying by Oracle competitors, including SAP AG and Microsoft Corp . To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Newman in Brussels at mnewman6@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

BHP, Rio Tinto Said to Be Nearing Agreement on Australian Iron Ore Venture

December 4, 2009

By Brett Foley and Matthew Newman Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — BHP Billiton Ltd. and Rio Tinto Group are close to agreeing on the terms of their proposed iron ore joint venture and may announce the deal as early as today, said two people familiar with the situation. The details of the venture are being completed and the companies expect to make an announcement on or close to the Dec. 5 deadline they set six months ago, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks are private. Australia’s BHP and London-based Rio, the second- and third-biggest iron ore producers, said June 5 they would combine their Western Australian mines, railways and ports in a 50-50 venture that would save more than $10 billion. The companies said they would reach a binding accord in six months. Rio is “focused on finalizing the details of the agreement and we are still on track for completion in the near future,” Nick Cobban , Rio’s spokesman in London, said yesterday. Ruban Yogarajah, a spokesman for BHP, declined to comment. A deal would come more than a year after BHP scrapped a hostile bid for Rio because of the U.K. company’s debt, falling commodity prices, and regulatory hurdles. BHP has made only one acquisition since walking away from Rio, the purchase of Australian mining company United Minerals Corp. for A$204 million ($188 million). BHP had $5.6 billion of net debt as of June 30, or a debt-to-equity ratio of 12 percent, the company said Aug. 12. It generated net operating cash flow of $18.9 billion in the year to June 30. Excess Cash With funds to spare, BHP needs to generate a return from the cash. The venture “is more important for BHP because their balance sheet is lazy and if they don’t consummate this deal, then there would be more pressure from their shareholders to do another transaction or find a use for the excess cash,” said Paul Cliff , an analyst in London at Nomura Securities Co. Ltd. who has a “reduce” recommendation on BHP and “buy” on Rio. BHP offered to pay Rio $5.8 billion to balance the two sides’ contribution to the venture, as BHP was judged on June 5 to own 45 percent of the Australian assets. The payment is too low and Rio may seek more favorable terms, Barclays Capital analyst Christopher LaFemina wrote in a report. “We felt that BHP was getting the better part of the deal because we never felt the asset split was 45-55,” said Rebecca O’Dwyer , an analyst at Investec Securities Ltd. in London The possibility of “the deal failing is a bigger concern for BHP because it is a higher-cost producer” of iron ore, she said. Share Buyback BHP may use cash to buy back its shares rather than seek an acquisition, Credit Suisse Group AG said last month in a report. BHP’s Chief Executive Officer Marius Kloppers said last week the company was committed to the planned venture and expected antitrust submissions to be made by the year-end. The European Commission, the antitrust authority of the European Union, said last year it had “serious doubts” about BHP’s offer for Rio because the enlarged company would control more than a third of seaborne iron-ore exports. The venture should be blocked by the commission, the World Steel Association, representing 19 of the world’s biggest producers, said Oct. 12. Steel companies argue the venture will curb competition and development of additional mining capacity. Brazil’s Vale SA is the world’s largest iron ore producer. To contact the reporters on this story: Brett Foley in London at bfoley8@bloomberg.net ; Matthew Newman at mnewman6@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Comcast Gains Majority Stake in NBC Universal

December 3, 2009

By Rachel Layne and Kelly Riddell Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) — Comcast Corp. , the largest U.S. cable-television company, agreed to buy a majority stake in NBC Universal through a venture with General Electric Co. that values the entertainment company at about $37 billion. Comcast will contribute $6.5 billion in cash and cable channels worth $7.25 billion, including the Golf Channel and E! Entertainment, to the new venture, the companies said today in a statement. Jeffrey Zucker will lead the new entity, they said. The deal gives Philadelphia-based Comcast the USA, CNBC, MSNBC and Bravo cable channels, NBC’s broadcast networks and stations, a film studio and amusement parks. Comcast’s push into programming advanced after Vivendi SA , France’s biggest media company, moved to sell its 20 percent of New York-based NBC Universal for $5.8 billion. A sale would mark GE’s eventual exit from the media industry after more than two decades. “New blood, new energy will be a good thing,” said Bob Wright , former chairman of NBC Universal, and current senior adviser at Lee Equity Partners LLC. Comcast is “buying NBCU in the deepest, darkest moments of media. I think they are value buyers and they are good asset managers,” he said. Comcast will get a 51 percent stake in the new entity, the companies said. GE had owned 80 percent of NBC Universal before the deal was struck. Comcast Chief Operating Officer Stephen Burke , 51, said in September that acquiring programming was a priority. For GE, the deal marks a retreat from an industry some analysts said never fit with the 117-year-old company’s industrial, finance and medical focus. GE’s Payout Comcast fell 2 cents to $14.94 yesterday on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The shares had dropped 11 percent this year before today. GE dropped 10 cents to $16.07 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading . Comcast and GE are valuing the current NBC Universal assets at about $30 billion. GE will get about $8 billion in net cash for its contribution to the venture. Issuing debt via the venture reduces the cash Comcast has to contribute to take control and helps get GE its payout. GE has owned NBC since its 1986 purchase of RCA Corp. Paris-based Vivendi, owner of Universal Music Group, obtained its stake with the sale of media assets including Universal Pictures to Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE in 2004. Vivendi CEO Jean-Bernard Levy had described NBC Universal as “non-core.” ‘A Better Way?’ The accord gives GE cash to invest elsewhere at a time when CEO Jeffrey Immelt , 53, is pursuing growth in emerging markets and units he’s labeled infrastructure following the global economic and financial crisis. Immelt for years resisted pressure from some shareholders to exit the media business, pointing to its cash flow and growth. Last month, he agreed to sell GE’s fire and security unit to United Technologies Corp. “You’ve got to think a couple years ahead in the space and ask: ‘Might there be partnerships to run the company in a better way?’” Immelt said of NBC Universal at an Oct. 20 event in San Francisco. “In this case, we’ve got all the options.” GE is the world’s biggest maker of jet engines, locomotives and medical-imaging machines. Its power-generation equipment produces about one-third of the world’s electricity, and its GE Capital finance arm lends to consumers and companies. Advocacy group Free Press in Washington said Nov. 30 it would ask regulators to block an NBC sale to Comcast because the cable operator would have too much power over what viewers see. Obama administration regulators have said they will aggressively investigate whether mergers stifle competition. They may impose conditions on the deal that ultimately makes it unattractive to Comcast, said analyst Craig Moffett , at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York. Conditions could be drafted to weaken Comcast’s bargaining position when dealing with TV-program owners, Moffett said. In addition, satellite competitors including Dish Network Corp. may pressure regulators to force Comcast to share its Philadelphia regional sports programming, which it currently holds exclusively. The merger may take about a year to pass regulatory muster, Moffett said. Comcast doesn’t plan to divest any assets to win regulatory approval for the combination, two people familiar with the matter said yesterday. To contact the reporters on this story: Rachel Layne in Boston at rlayne@bloomberg.net ; Kelly Riddell in Washington at kriddell1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Berkshire Hathaway Venture Wins Auction for Capmark Loan Unit, Lawyer Says

November 24, 2009

By Steven Church and Andrew Frye Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — Capmark Financial Group Inc., the bankrupt lender to office and apartment builders, agreed to sell its loan-servicing unit to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Leucadia National Corp. , a lawyer for Capmark said. The partnership between Berkshire and Leucadia, called Berkadia, won an auction for the servicing unit, beating out an affiliate of PNC Financial Services Group Inc. , attorney Michael Kessler told the judge overseeing Capmark’s bankruptcy case during a hearing today in Wilmington, Delaware. Berkadia increased its offer by $25 million and converted a $75 million note to cash, adding $100 million in cash to the deal, Kessler said in court today. The total value of the deal climbed to about $468 million from $408 million, Kessler said. “Berkadia increased its bid, I believe, to get us to break off talks with PNC Bank,” Kessler told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi , who must approve the deal before it can be completed. Sontchi is currently holding a hearing on the proposed sale. Horsham, Pennsylvania-based Capmark filed bankruptcy Oct. 25, blaming falling property values and a drop in lending. As of June 30, Capmark had $20.1 billion in assets and debts of $21 billion. The company lost $1.6 billion in April, May and June, according to court records. Buffett, who oversees businesses ranging from insurance to energy production, is investing Berkshire’s cash in assets hobbled by the property-market decline. Last year, he agreed to buy loans backing factory-built homes from CIT Group Inc. Capmark, owned by firms including KKR & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , paid Berkadia $40 million in September for a so- called put option requiring Berkadia to buy the servicing unit unless a higher offer came in. Buffett “wants to own good businesses over a long period of time,” said Paul Howard , an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott LLC’s Langen McAlenney division in Hartford, Connecticut. “But when the world is freaking out over commercial real estate, and they’re giving him a price far below what he thinks is the worst-case scenario, he’s going to be opportunistic.” The case is In re Capmark Financial Group Inc., 09-13684, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington). To contact the reporters on this story: Steven Church in Wilmington at schurch3@bloomberg.net ; Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Comcast Said to Ally With Ticketmaster, Live Nation to Save Music Merger

November 17, 2009

By Justin Blum and Adam Satariano Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) — Comcast Corp. is working with Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. and Live Nation Inc. to help the two companies salvage their music industry merger now under U.S. antitrust scrutiny, said two people familiar with the matter. Comcast, based in Philadelphia, is the largest U.S. cable operator. The company may receive spinoffs of ticketing software and client contracts as part of a proposal to alleviate Justice Department concerns that the Ticketmaster-Live Nation deal would inhibit competition, said the people, who declined to be identified because the deliberations are private. Comcast has met with Justice Department officials to discuss the proposal, the people said. Antitrust regulators must determine whether it’s enough to let the Ticketmaster-Live Nation deal go through, one of the people said. Comcast owns New Era Tickets, whose clients include the Philadelphia 76ers, Portland Trailblazers and World Wresting Entertainment Inc. A Justice Department spokeswoman, Gina Talamona , declined to comment. A spokesman for Ticketmaster and Live Nation declined to comment. John Demming , a spokesman for Comcast, had no immediate comment. Comcast controls the 76ers, the Philadelphia Flyers hockey team and Wachovia Center in the city. The move to expand its ticketing operations is another example of Comcast trying to grow beyond its core cable television business. The largest U.S. cable provider also is in talks with General Electric Co. to create a company that would include GE’s New York-based NBC Universal, people familiar with the matter have said. Consumer advocacy groups have asked regulators to block a Comcast-NBC deal because the transaction would leave Comcast with too much power over content viewers see. Market Power Comcast rose 42 cents, or 2.7 percent, to $15.85 in Nasdaq Stock Market trading yesterday. The shares have declined 6 percent this year. West Hollywood, California-based Ticketmaster rose 31 cents, or 2.8 percent, to $11.31. Live Nation , based in Beverly Hills, California, rose 23 cents, or 3 percent, to $7.94 on the New York Stock Exchange. The proposed merger of Ticketmaster and Live Nation would combine the world’s largest ticketing and artist management company with the biggest concert promoter and venue operator. Executives at the two companies argue the deal will create a new business model for a music industry that has been hurt by declining compact disc sales. Under terms of the deal, Ticketmaster investors are to receive 1.384 shares of Live Nation for each they now own. The companies have a combined market value of $1.3 billion. Comcast’s involvement comes as U.S. officials have raised concerns the Ticketmaster-Live Nation deal may give the combined company too much control over ticket prices, people familiar with the matter said last month. The U.K. Competition Commission issued a preliminary ruling against the merger last month and said it will make a final decision by Jan. 19. Shareholders of Ticketmaster and Live Nation will vote on the deal on Jan. 8, according to regulatory filings. Ticketmaster’s largest music client, Anschutz Entertainment Group, owner of Staples Center in Los Angeles and O2 Arena in London, is exploring whether to replace Ticketmaster, according to two people familiar with the deliberations. To contact the reporters on this story: Justin Blum in Washington at jblum4@bloomberg.net Adam Satariano in San Francisco at asatariano1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Sam Gustin: Suspicious trading before HP’s $2.7 billion 3Com bid; SEC closed for holiday

November 13, 2009

Somebody get the SEC on the phone, stat! Oh wait, they were closed Wednesday for Veterans Day. Suspicious activity in the options market for 3Com (COMS) raised concerns late Wednesday that news of computer and printer maker Hewlett-Packard’s (HPQ) $2.7 billion purchase of the networking company was leaked before the deal was officially announced, according to multiple reports. If this were the case, the activity could be a possible violation of securities law against insider trading. There was an abnormally massive spike in activity for November and December call options, which would give the holder the right to buy 3Com shares at $5. The stock was up 35% in after-hours trading to $7.65, meaning that someone who exercised the option could have realized a huge paper gain in a matter of hours. 3Com is among the companies that has come up in the probe of hedge fund Galleon Group, whose formerly high-flying founder Raj Rajaratnam was just indicted for orchestrating an insider-trading ring. News of the pending announcement would be the very definition of “material non-public information.” “Since I do not believe in coincidences on Wall Street, I would bet that these unusual call option trades will spark an investigation,” OptionMonster co-founder Jon Najarian told Reuters. Before the deal was announced Wednesday, 3Com options activity jumped to 17 times the normal level. The largest transaction was apparently an order of 1,900 November call options that took place around noon EST on the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the wire reported, according to Trade Alert. Continue reading at DailyFinance

Read the full article →

Tom Gregory: Goldman Sachs: Man Bites Dog, Americans Bleed

November 8, 2009

(Rooters) Washington D.C. Man Bites Dog! In a bold-faced brazen move against their master, on Friday the Obama administration rejected a proposal by Goldman Sachs to buy as much as $1 billion in tax credits from Fannie Mae, saying the deal would have amounted to a net loss for taxpayers. “It is our view that the proposed sale would result in a loss of aggregate tax revenues that would be greater than the savings,” said an administration official who was hurriedly moving his family under the FBI’s witness protection program. Goldman Sachs had proposed to pay cash for Fannie Mae’s tax credits, which are tied to investments in affordable housing. The government-controlled mortgage-finance company cannot use any credits, because its losses have wiped out any tax liability for the foreseeable future. Goldman executives had argued that the deal would provide much-needed capital to Fannie Mae, which it could use to finance additional low-income housing. Goldman could then re-package and short these future-foreclosures providing new securities to sell to the two remaining competitors it has been unable to take down. “We just don’t understand the government’s opposition to Goldman making money” said a Spectre spokesman on behalf of their wholly-owned subsidiary. “Don’t they know who we are?”

Read the full article →

Bondholders Extract Revenge on Fee-Hungry Bankers: David Reilly

November 5, 2009

Commentary by David Reilly Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) — Companies in dire straits often roll the dice in a bid to stave off bankruptcy. The problem is that last-ditch efforts to raise new funds or restructure often come at the expense of bondholders. Struggling companies, their advisers and lenders should think twice about such strategies after an almost $700 million judgment last month against Citigroup Inc. , Bank of America Corp. , Wells Fargo & Co. and other lenders, in connection with the bankruptcy of homebuilder Tousa Inc. With bankruptcies rising, the decision may push creditors in other cases — those of Tribune Co., Lyondell Chemical Co. and CIT Group Inc., for example — to pursue more aggressively what are called fraudulent conveyance claims. The Tousa case has caused the legal and bankruptcy communities to sit up and take notice because fraudulent conveyance claims rarely result in a sizeable judgment. Such claims seek to claw back money for a bankrupt entity by claiming a transaction was fraudulent because, while insolvent, it had transferred funds or assets without receiving something of equivalent value. Fraudulent conveyance claims are usually settled or fizzle because they face a tough road at trial, essentially requiring a bankruptcy judge to play Monday-morning quarterback. The Tousa case has turned that thinking on its head. “This case will undoubtedly embolden people in other cases, like Tribune,” said Douglas Baird , a University of Chicago law professor. Tribune Creditors Creditors of Tribune have alleged that fraudulent transfers took place as part of that company’s $8.3 billion going-private buyout. Tribune Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Sam Zell has denied the allegations, telling Bloomberg News, “In this particular case, I don’t think it’s valid, but ultimately it becomes a basis for negotiations.” Baird said the Tousa decision will make such negotiations tougher. “I can go back to a lender and say that there’s a serious fraudulent conveyance risk here, and they’d say those claims never get anywhere,” Baird said. “If I say that someone just got tagged to the tune of half a billion dollars, this becomes a real risk.” The Tousa decision also offers a window to some behavior that marked deal-making in the waning days of the credit and housing bubbles. One example: AlixPartners LLP, the firm issuing a solvency opinion for Tousa, was to receive $2 million for a favorable opinion, and less than half that for an adverse one. Guess how that worked out. Citigroup, Wells Fargo Banks such as Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, as well as other lenders, are appealing the Tousa decision. Last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John K. Olson ordered them to post bonds of about $700 million while pursuing the appeals. Tousa is a Hollywood, Florida-based homebuilder that expanded earlier this decade through a series of acquisitions, taking on $1 billion in debt. In 2005 the company entered into a joint venture to buy Transeastern Properties Inc. ’s homebuilding business. Tousa issued unsecured guarantees related to more than $500 million in borrowing by the venture, which quickly ran into trouble. Tousa faced claims due to its guarantees and in January 2007 agreed to pay more than $421 million. Tousa didn’t have that kind of cash, though, and its business was rapidly souring as the housing meltdown began. Secured Debt To finance the settlement, Tousa issued $500 million in new, secured debt on July 31, 2007. This was secured by Tousa subsidiaries that weren’t at risk from the failed joint venture. Those units were home to most of the company’s assets, meaning claims from the new lenders would compete with those of existing bondholders. Six months later, in January 2008, Tousa filed for bankruptcy. The company’s existing bondholders cried foul. They claimed the 2007 financing had fraudulently transferred value from the subsidiaries, which didn’t see any money from the deal and weren’t on the hook for the joint venture’s failure. The bondholders also argued that the subsidiaries were insolvent both before and after the new round of financing. Judge Olson agreed. His decision noted that banks and other lenders involved ignored ample evidence in early 2007 that Tousa was in bad shape and that taking on more debt wouldn’t benefit the company. He also found that: Layers of Fees — Those involved with the financing had big incentives to get the deal done, no matter the risks. Half the chief executive’s target incentive bonus of $4.5 million was contingent on the deal’s completion. So too was a $3.5 million fee for the company’s investment bankers, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. , along with a $2.9 million financing fee. And Citigroup “saw the proposed new financing as a highly attractive opportunity for fees,” the judge wrote. It ultimately collected $15 million. — Citigroup bankers arranging the financing knew early on that Tousa was in trouble. The judge noted that after looking over financial models for Tousa, a Citigroup banker wrote in an e-mail, “I don’t think the downside model should be shown to anyone outside of here. It’s too scary.” — The company’s board was warned in a letter from Capital Research and Management Company, an investor in Tousa’s existing bonds, that the new financing could put Tousa into the “zone of insolvency” and that it might be a “fraudulent transfer.” — Some lenders swallowed whatever management fed them, failing to question housing -market forecasts. That failure, Olson wrote, “was the result of either gross negligence or a willful decision — motivated by a desire to generate fee income — to turn a blind eye toward the obvious reality that Tousa was in a death spiral.” Now, Tousa’s bondholders have rightfully gotten some revenge, while fee-hungry bankers and lazy lenders have been warned. ( David Reilly is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.) Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer of this column: David Reilly at dreilly14@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Qatari Diar ‘close to finalising deal in Vietnam’

November 4, 2009

04 Nov 2009 Qatari Diar Real Estate is set to start a mixed-use project in Vietnam once the deal has been finalised. According to Hassan Alfadala, chief executive officer of the firm, this is set t…

Read the full article →

Berkshire’s Reduced Burlington Breakup Fee Shows Buffett Confident in Deal

November 3, 2009

By Andrew Frye and Zachary R. Mider Nov. 4 (Bloomberg) — Berkshire Hathaway Inc. , the holding company that agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. , accepted a lower-than-usual breakup fee in a sign Warren Buffett expects to complete his biggest takeover. Berkshire will receive $264 million if Burlington, the biggest U.S. railroad, cancels the agreement, according to a filing yesterday. That’s less than 1 percent of the deal’s value including net debt and compares with the 2 percent to 3 percent that is typical of these deals, said Elizabeth Nowicki , a professor at Tulane University Law School . “Berkshire recognizes there’s a very, very small chance Burlington is going to have the desire or the opportunity to back out,” Nowicki , who is a former mergers and acquisitions lawyer at New York-based Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, said in an interview. “In this difficult economy, I doubt the Burlington board is going to have other bidders wanting to acquire them.” Buffett, who built Berkshire over more than four decades, is taking on debt and spending the company’s cash as the economic crisis curbs expansion at some U.S. firms. Berkshire agreed to pay $26 billion for the 77.4 percent of Fort Worth, Texas-based Burlington it didn’t already own and assume $10 billion in net debt. “I don’t think anyone has the firepower to do this deal” besides Berkshire, said Paul Howard , an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott LLC’s Langen McAlenney division in Hartford, Connecticut. “Maybe a foreign entity, but the U.S. government is not going to let that happen.” Higher Takeover Fees The two non-governmental takeovers this year bigger than Burlington’s included termination fees of 3.1 percent and 2.6 percent. Pfizer Inc.’s $64 billion agreement to purchase Wyeth carried a termination fee of as much as $2 billion, and Schering-Plough Corp. would pay Merck & Co. $1.25 billion if it backed out of their $47 billion deal. Buffett, Berkshire’s chief executive officer , didn’t respond to a request for comment left with his assistant Carrie Kizer . Law firm Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP advised Burlington, and Munger Tolles & Olson LLP was Berkshire’s legal adviser. The Burlington agreement gives Buffett the “elephant”- sized acquisition he said he’s been looking for to deploy accumulated earnings from Berkshire’s insurance units and investments. It marks a shift from Buffett’s strategy in the recession of drawing down Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire’s cash hoard, valued at more than $24 billion at the end of June, to finance firms including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Harley- Davidson Inc. whose funding costs rose last year. ‘A Pound of Flesh’ Buffett’s Burlington purchase “is a much more traditional deal than his extracting a pound of flesh for liquidity” in the financing deals, said Justin Fuller , a partner at Midway Capital Research & Management who runs the buffettologist.com Web site. “He buys a traditional business and holds it forever.” Buffett, the world’s most celebrated investor, bought General Reinsurance Corp. in 1998 for more than $17 billion and expanded into power production with the purchase of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. Last year, he bought Marmon Holdings Inc., a collection of more than 100 businesses, from the Pritzker family. Berkshire previously purchased car insurer Geico Corp. and luxury plane-leaser NetJets Inc. Burlington was profitable every quarter for at least a decade and remains shielded from competition by its rail network. Buffett built Berkshire into a $150 billion company buying firms that he deems to have durable competitive advantages. The railroad, with pretax income of $3.37 billion on revenue of $18 billion last year, would be Berkshire’s second- largest operating unit by sales. Berkshire’s McLane unit, which delivers food to stores and restaurants by truck, earned $276 million on revenue of $29.9 billion in 2008. Berkshire’s largest business overall is insurance. To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net ; Zachary R. Mider in New York at zmider1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Buffett Takes 10 Days to Seal Biggest Deal in Career

November 3, 2009

By Zachary R. Mider Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) — Warren Buffett put together the biggest deal in his 44-year career at Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in 10 days. Buffett, Berkshire’s chairman, was in Fort Worth, Texas, on Oct. 22 for a company board meeting. The next day, he invited Matthew Rose , chief executive officer of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., to meet him at the Ashton Hotel, a 1915 city landmark. “It was a relatively short conversation,” Rose told Bloomberg Television today. “He told me what he wanted to do and the next day we fired up the process.” The deal Buffett unveiled to Rose was $100 a share for the 77.4 percent of Burlington not already owned by Omaha, Nebraska- based Berkshire, and Rose said he would take it to his board, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private. Over the weekend, Rose hired his longtime financial adviser, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , to analyze the bid. Goldman’s team included bankers Marc Nachmann and Dusty Philip . Rose also added George Ackert and Roger Altman of Evercore Partners Inc. , a New York-based boutique. Part of the reason Burlington’s board wanted Evercore as a second adviser was that Berkshire owns a $5 billion stake in Goldman Sachs, said the person with knowledge of the situation. Burlington Board Approves Buffett, Rose and their advisers spent the next week working out the deal. Burlington’s board approved the sale yesterday in Detroit, because lead director Edward Whitacre , who is chairman of General Motors Co., needed to be there for a GM board meeting, the person said. Berkshire’s board approved the deal last night, and Buffett announced it today. Buffett didn’t return a message left with his assistant Carrie Kizer . Berkshire will pay $26 billion, or $100 in cash and stock. Including Buffett’s previous investment and the assumption of debt, the deal’s value is about $44 billion, Berkshire said in a statement. Berkshire didn’t disclose using any financial advisers on the transaction. Buffett turned to his longtime outside lawyers, at the Los Angeles firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, including Robert Denham , Mary Ann Todd, and Brett Rodda. Burlington used a team from New York-based Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, including Scott Barshay , George Zobitz and Damien Zoubek. To contact the reporter on this story: Zachary R. Mider in New York at zmider1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Buffett to Acquire Burlington Northern for $26 Billion in His Biggest Deal

November 3, 2009

By Andrew Frye Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) — Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. agreed to buy railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. in what he described as an “all-in wager on the economic future of the United States.” The purchase, the largest ever for Berkshire, will cost the company $26 billion, or $100 a share in cash and stock, for the 77.4 percent of the railroad it doesn’t already own. Including his previous investment and debt assumption, the deal is valued at $44 billion, Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire said today in a statement. The railroad’s stock closed yesterday at $76.07. Berkshire has been building a stake in the Fort Worth, Texas-based railroad since 2006 as Buffett looked for what he called an “elephant”-sized acquisition allowing him to deploy his company’s cash hoard, which was more than $24 billion at the end of June. Trains stand to become more competitive against trucks with fuel prices high, he has said. “It is Warren being Warren, taking advantage of a market that is soft at a time when the possibility for competitive bids is relatively low,” said Tom Russo , a partner at Gardner Russo & Gardner, which holds Berkshire shares. “He looks at this as a business that has advantages against other forms of transportation.” At $100 a share, Buffett is paying 18.2 times Burlington Northern’s estimated 2010 earnings of $5.51, according to the average analyst projection in a Bloomberg survey . That compares with the 13.4 multiple for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index as of yesterday’s close. Shares of Burlington Northern, the largest U.S. railroad, dropped 13 percent in the 12 months through yesterday. Union Pacific, CSX Competing railroad Union Pacific Corp. ’s ratio was 13, while Jacksonville, Florida-based CSX Corp.’s was 13.1, Bloomberg data show. Union Pacific rose $4.35, or 7.9 percent, to $59.41 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. CSX climbed 7.3 percent. Burlington Northern surged to $97. Berkshire Class A shares rose $1,700, or 1.7 percent, to $100,450. The deal culminates a search by Buffett, 79, that sent him to Europe looking for possible acquisitions and lamenting in letters to shareholders that he and Vice Chairman Charles Munger couldn’t find companies they considered large enough to meaningfully add to annual earnings . Buffett needs “elephants in order for us to use Berkshire’s flood of incoming cash ,” he said in his annual letter to shareholders in 2007. “Charlie and I must therefore ignore the pursuit of mice and focus our acquisition efforts on much bigger game.” Trains, Trucks Burlington Northern, with pretax income of $3.37 billion on revenue of $18 billion last year, would be Berkshire’s second- largest operating unit by sales. The McLane unit, which delivers food to grocery stores and restaurants by truck, earned $276 million on revenue of $29.9 billion in 2008. Berkshire’s largest business is insurance, with units including auto specialist Geico Corp. Buffett, who is the company’s chairman and chief executive officer, has said he likes insurance because he gets to invest the premiums paid by customers until the cash is needed to pay claims. The insurance businesses last year collectively earned $7.51 billion on revenue of $30.3 billion. Buffett will use $16 billion in cash for the deal, half of which is being borrowed from banks and will be paid back in three annual installments, he told the CNBC. Berkshire will have more than $20 billion in consolidated cash after the purchase, he said. Cash Hoard “It doesn’t mean we’re out of business, but it does mean that we won’t be making any huge deals for a while,” Buffett told the network today. He said earlier this year the company needs at least $10 billion in cash to be ready for unforeseen events such as catastrophe claims at its insurance units. Berkshire would get $264 million from Burlington Northern if the railroad’s board accepts a higher bid, according to a regulatory filing today. Buffett built Berkshire into a $150 billion company buying firms that he deems to have durable competitive advantages. His largest purchases include the 1998 deal for General Reinsurance Corp. for more than $17 billion. Buffett expanded into power production with the purchase of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. , and last year bought Marmon Holdings Inc., the collection of more than 100 businesses, from the Pritzker family. Marmon’s Union Tank Car unit manufactures and leases railroad cars. He expects the economy to recover, he said in an interview in September with his company’s Business Wire unit. “We are still tossing out 14 trillion worth of product a year,” he said. “It will return. It’s already returned with most people in most ways, but it’s not back 100 percent. It’ll get there.” ‘Simple Bet’ The U.S. economy returned to growth in the third quarter after a yearlong contraction as government incentives spurred consumers to spend more on homes and cars. The world’s largest economy expanded at a 3.5 percent pace from July through September, Commerce Department figures showed last week. “It’s a pretty simple bet,” said Mario Gabelli , CEO of Gamco Investors Inc., which has holdings in Berkshire and Burlington Northern. “Warren knows the assets. He’s been involved in basic businesses like this for years.” Buffett is increasing his stake in an industry that doesn’t have any competitors for certain types of freight. Federal law requires some chemicals to be moved only by rail. Railroads burn less diesel fuel than trucks for each ton of cargo carried, giving companies such as Burlington Northern and Omaha-based Union Pacific a grip on bulk commodities such as coal. That fuel-efficiency advantage also gives railroads a share of the profits from moving goods such as Asian imports of cars and other consumer goods sent to U.S. West Coast ports. Fuel Prices From ships, containers are loaded onto railcars to be hauled to so-called intermodal terminals, where they’re transferred to trucks for the final leg of their journey. Buffett said in 2007 that railroads may prosper at the expense of trucks. “As oil prices go up, higher diesel fuel raises costs for rails, but it raises costs for its competitors, truckers, roughly by a factor of four,” Buffett told shareholders in 2007 at his company’s annual meeting. “There could be a lot more business there than there was in the past.” Berkshire’s board approved a 50-to-1 split of its Class B shares as part of the acquisition plan, the company said in a second statement. Berkshire will schedule a shareholder meeting to vote on an amendment to the company’s certificate of incorporation that’s needed to split the stock. B share typically trade for about a thirtieth of the price of A shares. Stock Split Most of the shares exchanged for Burlington Northern stock will be Class A shares, Berkshire said. Splitting the B shares is designed to accommodate the smallest holders who elect for a tax-free swap of the railroad’s stock, it said. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Evercore Partners Inc., and Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP are advising Burlington. Berkshire didn’t disclose a financial adviser and said Munger Tolles & Olson LLP furnished legal advice. Matthew Rose , the chief executive officer of Burlington Northern, said he struck the deal with Buffett after the two met in Texas. Buffett, named by Forbes as the second-richest American, was visiting because he has other business interests in the state, Rose said. “We spent a couple hours talking about the economy and the business,” Rose told Bloomberg Television. “The next day I got a call. He asked me to meet on a Friday night down in downtown Fort Worth. It was a relatively short conversation; he told me what he wanted to do. The next day we fired up the process.” Antitrust Review Burlington Northern operates 32,000 miles of track, with 6,700 locomotives, according to its Web site . Most of the carrier’s network is west of the Mississippi, where it competes with Union Pacific. The U.S. Department of Justice will conduct an antitrust review, which Burlington expects to be completed by the first quarter of next year, the company said today in a conference call with analysts and investors. Burlington Northern said two-thirds of the shares that aren’t held by Berkshire must vote in favor of the transaction for it to proceed under Delaware law. The railroad said it anticipates a shareholder meeting in the first quarter of 2010 and the completion of the transaction “very shortly thereafter.” To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Berkshire to Buy Burlington Northern for $26 Billion

November 3, 2009

By Andrew Frye and Hugh Son Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) — Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. agreed to buy railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. in the company’s biggest takeover. Buffett’s firm will pay $26 billion, or $100 a share in cash and stock, for the 77.4 percent of the railroad it doesn’t already own. Including his previous investment and the assumption of debt, the value of the deal is about $44 billion, Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire said in a statement today. That compares with the railroad’s closing price yesterday of $76.07. “It’s an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States,” Buffett said in the statement. Berkshire has been building a stake in the Fort Worth, Texas-based railroad for more than two years as Buffett looked for what he called an “elephant”-sized acquisition in which he could deploy his company’s cash hoard, valued at more than $24 billion as of the end of June. Trains stand to become more competitive against trucks with fuel prices high, he has said. “It is Warren being Warren, taking advantage of a market that is soft at a time when the possibility for competitive bids is relatively low,” said Tom Russo , a partner at Gardner Russo & Gardner, which holds Berkshire shares. “He looks at this as a business that has advantages against other forms of transportation.” At $100 a share, Buffett is paying 18.2 times Burlington’s estimated 2010 earnings of $5.51, according to the average analyst projection in a Bloomberg survey . That compares with the 13.4 multiple for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index as of yesterday’s close. Burlington Northern shares have dropped 13 percent in the 12 months through yesterday. Union Pacific, CSX Competing railroad Union Pacific Corp. ’s ratio was 13, while Jacksonville, Florida-based CSX Corp.’s was 13.1, Bloomberg data show. The deal culminates a search by Buffett, 79, that sent him to Europe looking for possible acquisitions and lamenting in letters to shareholders that he and Vice Chairman Charles Munger couldn’t find companies they considered large enough to meaningfully add to annual earnings . Buffett needs “elephants in order for us to use Berkshire’s flood of incoming cash ,” he said in his annual letter to shareholders in 2007. “Charlie and I must therefore ignore the pursuit of mice and focus our acquisition efforts on much bigger game.” Buffett will use $16 billion in cash for the deal, half of which is being borrowed from banks and will be paid back in three annual installments, he told the CNBC television network. Berkshire will have more than $20 billion in consolidated cash after the purchase, he said. Cash Hoard “It doesn’t mean we’re out of business, but it does mean that we won’t be making any huge deals for a while,” Buffett told the network today. He said earlier this year the company needs a minimum of $10 billion in cash to be ready for unforeseen events such as catastrophe claims at its insurance units. Buffett built Berkshire into a $150 billion company buying firms that he deems to have durable competitive advantages. His largest purchases include the 1998 deal for General Reinsurance Corp. for more than $17 billion. Buffett expanded into power production with the purchase of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. , and last year bought Marmon Holdings Inc., the collection of more than 100 businesses, from the Pritzker family. He expects the economy to recover, he said in an interview in September with his company’s Business Wire unit. ‘It’ll Get There’ “We are still tossing out 14 trillion worth of product a year,” he said. “It will return. It’s already returned with most people in most ways, but it’s not back 100 percent. It’ll get there.” Buffett said in 2007 that railroads may prosper at the expense of trucks. “As oil prices go up, higher diesel fuel raises costs for rails, but it raises costs for its competitors, truckers, roughly by a factor of four,” Buffett told shareholders in 2007 at his company’s annual meeting. “There could be a lot more business there than there was in the past.” Berkshire’s board approved a 50-to-1 split of its Class B shares to help the acquisition, the company said. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Evercore Partners Inc., and Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP are advising Burlington. Berkshire didn’t disclose a financial adviser and said Munger Tolles & Olson LLP furnished legal advice. ‘Fired Up’ Matthew Rose , the chief executive officer of Burlington Northern, said he struck the deal with Buffett after the two met in Texas where the billionaire investor was visiting because he has other business interests. “We spent a couple hours talking about the economy and the business,” Rose told Bloomberg Television. “The next day I got a call. He asked me to meet on a Friday night down in downtown Fort Worth. It was a relatively short conversation, he told me what he wanted to do. The next day we fired up the process.” Burlington Northern operates 32,000 miles of track, with 6,700 locomotives, according to its Web site . Most of the carrier’s network is west of the Mississippi, where it competes with Union Pacific. The company hauls cargo including grain, coal and so-called intermodal containers, which can move by a combination of rail, road and sea. U.S. railroad shares advanced in early trading. Union Pacific rose 6.4 percent at 8:59 a.m. in New York. CSX Corp. climbed 6.9 percent. The U.S. Department of Justice will conduct an antitrust review, which Burlington expects to be completed by the first quarter of next year, the company said today in a conference call with analysts and investors. Burlington Northern said two-thirds of the shares that aren’t held by Berkshire must vote in favor of the transaction for it to proceed under Delaware law. The railroad said it anticipates a shareholder meeting in the first quarter of 2010 and to close the transaction “very shortly thereafter.” To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net ; Hugh Son in New York at hson2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

UPDATE: Bank Of America’s $2.027 Billion TALF Deal Sold – Source (Nasdaq)

November 2, 2009

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The $2.027 billion Bank of America Auto Trust deal, eligible for a Federal Reserve program, has sold, according to a person familiar with the deal.

Read the full article →

Ford Workers Reject Contract changes

October 31, 2009

DETROIT — Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract changes that would have allowed the automaker to cut labor costs, leaving Ford at a disadvantage to its Detroit rivals as it continues its struggle to return to profitability. The United Auto Workers union had given local unions until Monday to complete voting. But a person briefed on the voting said Saturday that the contract changes have been rejected by large margins. The person asked not to be named because the UAW hasn’t announced the results yet. The UAW and Ford agreed to the contract changes several weeks ago, but Ford workers needed to ratify them. Ford has 41,000 UAW-represented workers. Two large union locals in Kentucky and Ford’s home city of Dearborn rejected the contract Friday, sealing its fate. Those unions together represent 13,000 Ford workers. Exact tallies weren’t available, but at least 12 UAW locals representing about 27,500 workers so far have vetoed the deal, many overwhelmingly. Only about four locals with a total of 7,000 members favored the pact. Ford sought the deal to bring its labor costs in line with Detroit rivals Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co., both of which won concessions from the union as they headed into bankruptcy protection earlier this year. Under pattern bargaining, the three automakers usually match pay, benefits and other contract provisions. But workers weren’t convinced they should make more concessions, since Ford avoided bankruptcy and is considered healthier than its rivals. At least two Wall Street analysts are predicting that Ford could report a profit Monday when it announces third-quarter earnings. Rocky Comito, president of UAW Local 862 in Louisville, said Friday that workers felt they were being asked to sacrifice more than the company’s executives. Ford CEO Alan Mulally made $17.7 million last year, although that was down 22 percent from the year before. “Some want to see management give more at the upper level,” Comito said. Ford was offering workers a $1,000 bonus if they ratified the contract. But the contract also would have frozen entry-level pay, changed some work rules and limited workers’ ability to strike. A message seeking comment was left Saturday for the UAW. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said Friday that there wouldn’t be a revote if the contract changes failed. “If it fails, there would be no reason to go back to the bargaining table,” Gettelfinger said at a community event in Detroit. “We have a democratic process in place. People have a right to express themselves. We recognize there’s a lot of misinformation about it out there, but that is what it is.” Factory-level union leaders have known for several days that the deal would be defeated, said one Detroit-area official who asked not to be identified because the voting is not completed. The union did a poor job of explaining the need to preserve jobs and keep Ford competitive with GM and Chrysler, the official said. He doesn’t believe members will approve any more changes until the 2011 contract, which will leave Ford at a disadvantage and has the potential to knock the company from its position as the strongest financially of the Detroit Three. “Our goal should be to keep Ford Motor Co. going in the right direction,” he said. Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., said the vote was a slap to UAW leadership. It’s extremely rare for union members to oppose the union’s recommended vote. Chaison said the vote damages the reputation of UAW Vice President Bob King, the chief Ford negotiator, who has been mentioned as a successor to Gettelfinger when the union elects a new president in 2010. “The sign of a good leader is that you can agree to something and then sell it to the membership,” Chaison said. Chaison said Ford asked for too much too soon after workers already agreed to concessions earlier this year. He also said Ford lacked credibility because its financial situation wasn’t as dire as GM’s or Chrysler’s. “They made such a strong case about not going to bankruptcy court and turning the corner, so they couldn’t go to the workers and say, ‘We need this to turn the corner,’” he said. The no votes came even as Ford reached a similar cost-cutting agreement with the Canadian Auto Workers union Friday. The CAW has agreed to cuts in benefits in exchange for product guarantees, but that agreement must be ratified by Canadian workers. In addition to the plants in Louisville and Dearborn, workers at factories in Chicago; Claycomo, Mo.; and Livonia, Plymouth, Sterling Heights, Flat Rock, Ypsilanti Township, Mich., rejected the deal. Locals in Wayne, Mich.; Cleveland; Indianapolis and St. Paul, Minn., voted in favor. ___ Associated Press Writers Corey Williams in Detroit and Janet Cappiello Blake in Louisville contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

"Special Servicer" to Take Over Debt Due to "Imminent Default"

October 23, 2009

According to people familiar with the matter, a ” special servicer ,” CW Capital, is in the process of taking over the deal’s CMBS debt due to “imminent default.” Special servicers are experts in dealing with troubled loans. …

Read the full article →

Invesco to Buy Morgan Stanley’s Van Kampen as Banks Unload Asset Managers

October 20, 2009

By Christopher Condon and Christine Harper Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) — Invesco Ltd. agreed to buy Morgan Stanley’s retail investment management business for $1.5 billion in stock and cash, the industry’s third takeover of an asset manager from a loss-ridden bank in four months. Invesco, manager of the Aim and PowerShares funds, will gain about $119 billion in client money including the Van Kampen unit, bringing its assets under management to about $536 billion, the Atlanta-based firm said yesterday in a statement. The purchase price includes $500 million in cash and $1 billion in stock, which will make Morgan Stanley Invesco’s largest shareholder with a 9.4 percent stake. Invesco’s largest deal since its $1.54 billion purchase of Britain’s Perpetual Plc in 2001 follows takeovers of asset managers by Ameriprise Financial Inc. and BlackRock Inc. Morgan Stanley is revamping its asset-management businesses after the division reported six consecutive quarterly losses totaling $1.67 billion. “I don’t think the banks necessarily still needed the cash, but the combination of increasing capital and not viewing asset management as a core business meant these deals still made sense,” D.J. Neiman, an analyst with William Blair & Co. in Chicago, said in a telephone interview. Van Kampen had $86 billion in client money as of June 30, held in mutual funds, retirement and college savings plans, unit investment trusts and accounts for wealthy individuals managed by Van Kampen Investments in Houston. Morgan Stanley managed $44 billion in assets under its own name. “This combines two mid-sized firms to create more scale in an industry where we think the largest companies are pretty well positioned,” Jeffrey Hopson , an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in St. Louis, said in an interview. Columbia, BGI The transaction marks the third asset-management sale since June by a bank hurt by mortgage-backed securities losses. Bank of America Corp . agreed Sept. 30 to sell the Columbia stock and bond funds for $1.2 billion to Ameriprise. Barclays Plc agreed in June to deal its Barclay’s Global Investors to BlackRock Inc . for $13.5 billion. Invesco expects the deal to create $70 million in savings, boosting earnings by 13 cents a share in the first year after its completion. Most of the savings will come from combining distribution platforms and locations, Chief Financial Officer Loren Starr said in a telephone interview. “This is about adding depth and breadth to our investment- management capabilities,” Chief Executive Officer Martin Flanagan said in the interview. “This is a growth opportunity, not a cost saving opportunity.” Brokerage Agreement Flanagan said the deal includes a distribution agreement with the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney brokerage unit similar to one it already has for marketing other Invesco funds. He wouldn’t disclose terms of that agreement. The $1 billion of Invesco stock being acquired by Morgan Stanley was priced at $22.68 a share, representing a 1.9 percent discount from yesterday’s closing price of $23.12. Morgan Stanley’s sale of the retail funds follows the expansion of its brokerage business through the creation of the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney joint venture this year. The firm paid $2.75 billion in June to complete the agreement. The deal gave Morgan Stanley control over more than 18,400 financial advisers. Brokers sometimes balk at selling funds owned by their own firm because of the appearance of a conflict of interest, Brad Hintz , an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in New York, said before the deal was announced. ‘Long-Term Dividends’ Douglas Ciocca , a managing director at Renaissance Financial Corp. in Leawood, Kansas, said Morgan Stanley’s decision to exit the retail funds business and stick to advising individual investors “is going to pay long-term dividends.” Financial advisers have “more sticky money, there’s more consistency of the revenue contribution than you would get ever in asset management,” said Ciocca, whose $1.9 billion of assets doesn’t include Morgan Stanley stock. Morgan Stanley has written down $23 billion in losses on mortgage-related investments since the third quarter of 2007. The firm said in September that Co-President James Gorman will take over as chief executive officer for John Mack on Jan. 1. Morgan Stanley is likely to book a gain on the Van Kampen transaction upon completion, according to a person familiar with the deal who declined to comment publicly because those details aren’t public. The deal has been approved by the boards of directors of both companies and is expected to close by the middle of next year, Invesco said in the statement. Convincing Customers Morgan Stanley bought Van Kampen, then with $57 billion in assets, for $1.18 billion in cash, preferred shares and debt, in 1996. Assets at the unit fell 32 percent in the year ended June 30, as customers withdrew a net $13.7 billion and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declined 26 percent. Assets in Morgan Stanley retail funds dropped 39 percent as clients pulled out $14.1 billion. “Business is by no means thriving,” Neiman said. He said the success of the deal for Invesco may hinge on whether it can convince Van Kampen and Morgan Stanley customers to stay. Invesco, which also owns New York-based private-equity firm W.L. Ross & Co., Trimark funds in Toronto and London’s Perpetual funds, reported $75.7 million in net income in the second quarter on $625.1 million in revenue. Van Kampen Lineup Van Kampen’s largest fund is the $12 billion Equity Income Fund , managed by Thomas Bastian . The fund gained 18 percent this year through Oct. 1, compared with the 16 increase for the S&P 500, including reinvested dividends. Van Kampen funds, divided into broad investing categories, beat 43 percent of their peers on average in the three years ended Sept. 30, according to Chicago-based research firm Morningstar Inc. Funds that invest in U.S. stocks fared best as a group, beating 66 percent of similarly grouped funds at other money managers. Taxable bond funds did worst, outperforming 21 percent of rivals. Morgan Stanley funds beat 55 percent of rivals, on average. U.S. stock funds did best, topping 68 percent of their peers, while taxable bond funds beat 27 percent. Morgan Stanley’s biggest retail fund is the $1.45 billion Focus Growth Fund , managed by Dennis Lynch . It returned 58 percent this year through Oct. 1, beating all but one of 268 funds that target the shares of large companies expected to report above-average growth in profits or revenue, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Invesco oversaw $417 billion as of Sept. 30, including $87.2 billion in money-market funds, according to the company. The company managed $12.5 billion in the PowerShares exchange- traded funds as of Aug. 31, according to Boston’s State Street Corp., which manages ETFs and tracks that industry. ETFs mimic indexes while trading throughout the day like stocks. To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Condon in Boston at ccondon4@bloomberg.net ; Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

CVS selling Longs offices (Lamorinda Sun)

October 18, 2009

WALNUT CREEK — CVS Caremark Corp. is hanging on to nearly every drugstore it obtained through its $2.84 billion purchase of Longs Drug Stores Corp., but it’s a different story for several East Bay offices CVS inherited through the deal.

Read the full article →

Lehman Says Negotiators Knew Barclays Got $5 Billion Discount on Purchase

October 17, 2009

By Christopher Scinta Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) — Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. executives who negotiated the sale of the bank’s North American brokerage business to Barclays Plc knew they were giving the U.K.-based bank a $5 billion discount, Lehman said in court. Executives including Ian Lowitt , Paolo Tonucci and Bart McDade knew that Barclays was getting securities valued at about $50 billion for $45 billion in cash, according to a September motion unsealed Oct. 15 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York in which Lehman asked for the return of some assets. Some executives negotiating the deal knew they would receive offers to work at Barclays after the sale, Lehman said, citing e-mails and deposition testimony. The salaries offered were blacked out. “I was aware that the — that Barclays was going to purchase a substantial block of assets for less than the amount that we had on our books to reflect a sort of bid offer that reflected both the size of the purchase, as well as inherent volatility in the market, which was significant that week,” Lowitt, Lehman’s chief financial officer at the time, testified, according to the documents. A Barclays Capital spokeswoman, Kerrie-Ann Cohen , and Kimberly Macleod , a Lehman spokeswoman, declined to comment. Lowitt declined to comment through a spokesman. Tonucci, then Lehman’s global treasurer, didn’t respond to messages seeking comment. McDade, then the bank’s president, couldn’t be reached. Lehman’s assets were under the control of the bankruptcy court when Barclays paid $1.54 billion for them in a sale that closed Sept. 22. Facts Held Back “Material components” of the deal were kept from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck , who approved the sale, Lehman said, giving Barclays an “immediate and enormous windfall profit” that may have exceeded $8.2 billion when liabilities Barclays assumed are taken into account. Lehman filed the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history on Sept. 15, 2008, with assets of $639 billion. The collapsed bank asked to revise the deal and be allowed to pursue claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unauthorized transfer of assets. The request is supported by Lehman’s unsecured creditors and James Giddens , the trustee liquidating Lehman’s brokerage on behalf of the U.S. Securities Investor Protection Corp. The fight between Barclays and Lehman’s creditors over the value of assets transferred is set to last well into next year. Peck said Oct. 15 he wanted to hear live testimony rather than rely completely on depositions. He advised parties to discuss May trial dates. Regulators’ Support Government regulators supported the speedy sale to Barclays at the time in an effort to calm global securities markets. Some Lehman creditors fought it, saying the deal was moving too quickly and London-based Barclays was underpaying. Lehman and Barclays held talks about an acquisition by the U.K. bank in the days before Lehman’s bankruptcy, without agreeing on a deal. Within hours of the court filing, Barclays approached Lehman and negotiated an agreement “very quickly” as the value of Lehman’s assets tumbled, according to court papers. During a hearing on the deal before Peck, negotiators changed some terms without disclosing them to the court, according to Lehman’s filing by attorneys at Jones Day . Lehman asked in May for permission to investigate whether Barclays got too good a deal after the U.K. bank’s financial results for 2008 showed a gain of 2.26 billion pounds ($3.72 billion) from the acquisition of Lehman’s North American operations. The case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). — With assistance from Linda Sandler and Josh Fineman in New York. Editors: David E. Rovella , Charles Carter To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Scinta in New York at cscinta@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →