Exchanges Are Moving to Curb Private Trades

The chief executives of the three largest stock exchanges are joining forces for the first time to push regulators to rein in the increasing amount of trading that is moving off public exchanges and onto platforms like so-called dark pools.

The leaders of the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and BATS Global Markets, the third largest exchange operator, are planning to meet on Tuesday with officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to people briefed on the meeting.

The officials will be pushing regulators to step up their oversight of private trading platforms such as dark pools, which are generally owned by banks and allow investors to trade out of the public eye, the people said. As the amount of trading taking place away from the public exchanges has grown rapidly, regulators have been examining whether dark pools create an uneven playing field for some investors.

The exchanges have been relatively restrained in publicly criticizing off-exchange trading because the banks that run the dark pools are also among the largest customers of the exchanges. Cooperation among the exchanges has also been difficult because of their fierce competition.

The exchange executives are said to have been motivated to step up their opposition now because the amount of trading away from exchanges has been steadily creeping up and has accounted for as much as 40 percent of all trading on some recent days, according to data from Rosenblatt Securities. Another motivation for the exchanges is the turnover in leadership at the S.E.C., including the new chairwoman, Mary Jo White, who was confirmed by the Senate on Monday.

The chief of the Nasdaq OMX Group, Robert Greifeld, and the chief of NYSE Euronext, Duncan Niederauer, have individually voiced their concerns about trading migrating away from the exchanges, but their comments have not involved any unified set of proposals to deal with the issue. The chief of BATS, Joe Ratterman, until now has almost entirely avoided public statements about dark pools and off-exchange trading.

On Tuesday, the exchange executives are expected to propose some version of the “trade at” rule, which would allow a trade to occur away from an exchange only if the customer was getting a significantly better price than was available on an exchange.

“If the heads of the country’s biggest exchanges are all getting together to raise the issue it just underscores how important this is to the markets and to these companies specifically,” said Justin Schack, a managing director at Rosenblatt Securities.

Spokesmen for the exchanges would not comment on the meeting.

Australian and Canadian regulators have taken steps in recent months to limit off-exchange trading in their markets. The S.E.C. put out a release in 2010 proposing new rules for dark pools, but the agency has not taken any action since then.

While dark pools are coming under particular scrutiny, the exchanges have also been criticized for the role they have played in the increasing complexity and fragility of the nation’s stock markets. Both Nasdaq and BATS suffered significant technology mishaps last year that dented confidence in the markets.

Not all off-exchange trading happens in dark pools. Many trades made by retail investors are sent to firms, known as internalizers, that pay to trade with the orders before they reach an exchange.

At a Senate hearing in December, Eric Noll, the head of market structure issues at Nasdaq OMX Group, said that past S.E.C. regulations “led to an increase in dark trading, which denies market participants a clear view of trading interest in a given stock.”

A few academic studies have found that when trading in the dark increases, traders compete less aggressively to provide good prices to investors on the exchanges.

Penney Turns to Chief Who Dealt With Activist Investors

To end Ron Johnson’s tortured 17-month tenure as J.C. Penney’s chief executive, the embattled retailer is turning to the man who ceded his seat to Mr. Johnson amid pressure from activist investors.

Myron E. Ullman III, a veteran retail executive who led J.C. Penney for seven years, must now try to revive the fortunes of the company he left last year. Under Mr. Johnson, shares in the retailer have tumbled more than 52 percent.

Mr. Ullman was leading J.C. Penney when the hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management and Vornado Realty Trust suddenly emerged as big shareholders in 2010.

Mr. Ullman had been taken by surprise, given how quickly Pershing and Vornado materialized with a 27 percent stake in the department store company. But he began briefing Pershing’s William A. Ackman and Vornado’s Steven Roth over several months, inviting them to the company’s headquarters in Plano, Tex., before eventually giving the two board seats in January 2011.

Speaking of those conversations, Mr. Ullman told DealBook then that Pershing and Vornado had adopted a “take the high road” approach that was, in his words, “constructive.”

But Mr. Ullman was on his way out nearly six months later. The board â€" spurred on by Mr. Ackman â€" poached Mr. Johnson, then Apple’s much-lauded head of retail, as its new chief.

A Battle Intensifies Over the Fate of Energy Future Holdings

The biggest private equity buyout ever â€" the $45 billion deal for the Texas energy giant TXU in 2007 â€" has been steadily sliding toward becoming one of the biggest busts.

Yet even as bankruptcy is acknowledged as a possibility, the company’s private equity owners are trying to make sure they don’t walk away empty-handed.

The company, now called Energy Future Holdings, has completed a series of moves in recent months that analysts say could allow it to put only part of its business â€" the retail energy and power-generation operations â€" into bankruptcy, while holding on to the staid-but-safe utility business. And the company recently received a favorable tax ruling that could potentially allow it to save billions of dollars in a reorganization.

Still, as much as Energy Future Holdings may want to tie a reorganization into a neat little bow, some creditors, including seasoned hedge fund investors in distressed debt, are certain to make this a fight of junkyard dogs.

Those investors have amassed big chunks of the senior debt of the segment of Energy Future Holdings that houses the retail and power-generation business. The loans, which currently trade around 70 cents on the dollar, put the investors first in line to convert their debt into equity in a restructuring of the power-generation assets.

“Some of the hedge funds in this have been buying up certain pieces of the debt, hoping to force a default” and put the company into bankruptcy, said Andrew DeVries, an analyst with the research firm CreditSights.

Among the investors who have picked up some of Energy Future Holdings’ debt are Leon Black’s Apollo Management Group, fresh from scooping up Twinkies in the Hostess Brands bankruptcy; the Blackstone Group’s GSO Capital Partners, a distressed credit fund whose founders include some who cut their teeth on junk bonds at Drexel Burnham Lambert in the 1980s; and the California investment firm Franklin Resources, which, in an odd twist, voted against the 2007 buyout as a TXU shareholder because it said the $45 bilion price was too low.

Calls to Apollo and Blackstone were not returned. A spokeswoman for Franklin declined to comment.

Already, an early shot in the coming battle has been fired.

The New York-based hedge fund Aurelius Capital Management, which owns some of the senior debt, sued the directors and management of Energy Future Holdings in March, claiming that a series of sweetheart loans from one affiliate to the parent company were made at well below market rates and hurt the affiliate financially. It says the parent company owes an additional $725 million in interest on the loans.

Representatives for Aurelius and Energy Future Holdings declined to comment on the lawsuit.

A messy fight would not be a surprise; the likely restructuring of Energy Future Holdings has long been predicted by many on Wall Street. The deal for the company was the biggest in the buyout boom before the financial crisis. Other buyouts from that era have struggled as well, but cheap debt markets have enabled them to keep going.

That has not been enough for Energy Future Holdings. Plagued by low natural gas and energy prices, the company’s revenue has continued to fall while its losses have soared. Last year, more than half of its revenue went just to make the interest payments on its huge debt load of $37.8 billion, much of which was taken on to complete the buyout in 2007.

In recent months, a veritable who’s who of restructuring wizards, legal teams and financial experts have been hired by all sides. Wall Street credit analysts are furiously churning out estimates of what various groups of debt holders could be paid in a restructuring pact.

Still, exactly when the company may take the plunge remains a guessing game on Wall Street. Some analysts say a move could be made by the end of this summer; others are betting on early next year.

The company has ample cash to make its next round of interest payments in May, but some analysts say the side of the business that controls the energy generation and retail segments is running dangerously low on money.

“We think they’re going to run out of cash in the beginning of 2014,” said Jim Hempstead, an analyst with Moody’s Investors Service. “They won’t wait until they’ve completely exhausted their cash before they do something.”

The showdown over Energy Future Holdings could focus on a $3.8 billion loan that comes due in October 2014, analysts say. The hedge fund investors have taken big stakes in that debt, giving them a seat at the table if Energy Future Holdings wants to renegotiate the terms of that loan.

Until now, the company has pushed back its day of reckoning, when tens of billions of dollars of its debt comes due, through rounds of successful renegotiations with its debt holders, but often at higher interest rates.

“That strategy is becoming more difficult,” said Terry Pratt, an analyst with Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service. “It’s been very costly to extend the maturities.”

Allan Koenig, a spokesman for Energy Future Holdings, said that despite the company’s troubled balance sheet, it has continued to grow, increasing its full-time work force by 25 percent, or 1,900 employees, since the 2007 buyout, and has spent $10 billion on capital expenditures.

Still, its private equity owners â€" including Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company, TPG Capital and the private equity arm of Goldman Sachs â€" have largely written down to zero the value of the $8 billion that they and others sank into the deal. Representatives for the three firms declined to comment.

Over the last year, as Energy Future Holdings’ financials worsened, the company began taking steps that Wall Street analysts say were intended to separate the regulated electricity business, Oncor, from the unregulated power-generation business, Luminant, in an effort to keep it out of a possible bankruptcy filing, analysts say.

The 80 percent stake in the utility company that is held by the private equity firms and other investors is worth about $6.5 billion right now, according to analysts. While still less than their $8 billion investment, that stake would certainly go a long way toward reducing investors’ losses.

If energy prices rise, Oncor could wind up being worth more, said Richard M. Gordon, a private equity and law professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan.

“When they did the deal, everybody had stars in their eyes over the unregulated side of the business,” Professor Gordon said. “It’s a terrific irony that the thing that could be of any value now to K.K.R. and TPG is the regulated utility business.”

Regulated by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Oncor already has a separate board and is limited by regulators in the amount of debt it can borrow. But Energy Future Holdings has taken additional steps to cut any entanglements between the companies that could prove messy in a restructuring, analysts say. Last summer, for example, Energy Future Holdings terminated and paid out a pension fund for certain employees, which some interpreted as another maneuver to insulate Oncor, which had been partially responsible for the fund, in a possible restructuring.

Other companies have tried to do so-called selective bankruptcies in the past.

In 2011, for instance, the Houston-based power producer Dynegy Holdings tried to transfer certain assets to shield shareholders at the parent company from losses when a subsidiary filed for bankruptcy. An independent examiner later deemed those transfers “fraudulent,” and Dynegy reached a settlement with the creditors.

“What they’re doing is not unlike the good bank-bad bank structures where all of the trash is dumped into one side and the good stuff put into the other side,” Professor Gordon said.

“It’s just legal maneuvering. Will it work Well, we’ll see.”

Not So Pumped Up about G.E.’s Latest Deal

General Electric’s shareholders are closing the gusher on bolt-on oil deals. Their reaction to the conglomerate’s $3 billion purchase of Lufkin Industries is more realistic than the wowed reception given to an earlier acquisition. Lufkin, whose technology helps increase production for aging oil wells, is a strong player in a growing sector. But previous deals did little for margins and the latest doesn’t come cheap.

Just two-and-a-half years ago, shareholders greeted G.E.’s $3 billion purchase of Dresser, a maker of gas infrastructure, by adding $4 billion to the buyer’s market capitalization. By contrast, Monday’s deal was initially followed by a 0.2 percent drop in the stock before it rebounded later in the day.

G.E. is certainly not driving a hard bargain. The enterprise value the company is paying comes in at 13.5 times this year’s estimated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortizaion, or Ebitda. That’s far more than the 8.7 multiple National Oilwell Varco paid last year for Robbins & Myers, according to Credit Suisse. And G.E. is also stumping up a 38 percent premium.

That puts the acquisition squarely in the camp of some of its previous deals. It shelled out a 29 percent premium for Wellpoint of Britain in 2010, for example. And these earlier deals for G.E.’s oil and gas unit, though hardly failures, have not been roaring successes.

Granted, the business now brings in $15 billion of revenue a year, three times its 2005 showing. And it now accounts for 10 percent of the conglomerate’s top line. But the oil and gas division’s operating margin has slipped from 15 percent to under 13 percent in the past couple of years. That implies the company has not managed to find extra synergies to justify the $11 billion or so it has spent buying five companies since 2007.

Lufkin ought to be different. It has nearly doubled earnings over the past two years and is one of the top three players in its field. But after experiencing several years of decent, but not stellar, returns from its spending spree, G.E. shareholders are right to temper their earlier optimism.

Christopher Swann is a columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. For more independent commentary and analysis, visit breakingviews.com.

THL to Buy CompuCom, a Technology Services Firm

The private equity firm THL Partners agreed on Monday to buy CompuCom Systems, a privately held information technology services provider, from another private equity firm.

Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed, but a person briefed on the matter said that THL is paying CompuCom’s current owner, Court Square Capital Partners, about $1.1 billion in cash.

CompuCom, based in Dallas, focuses on helping companies outsource their information technology services. It reaped about $2.3 billion in gross revenue last year, it said in a statement.

The deal is expected to close by June 30.

Financing is being provided by Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, the Bank of Montreal and the Jefferies Group.

CompuCom and Court Square is being advised by Citi and the law firm Dechert, while THL is being advised by BMO Capital Markets, Jefferies and the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

With Senate Approval, White Is Set to Run S.E.C.

The Senate on Monday confirmed Mary Jo White as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, dismissing concerns about her close ties to the Wall Street banks she will now oversee.

Ms. White, a former federal prosecutor who spent the last decade defending JPMorgan Chase and other big banks, secured Senate approval by unanimous consent. Ms. White is expected to join the agency in the coming days, replacing Elisse B. Walter, who was running the S.E.C. since the departure of Mary L. Schapiro in December.

Her arrival at the post comes at a time of transition for the S.E.C. and the public markets it regulates. The agency is under pressure from Congress to complete new rules for Wall Street and take aim at financial fraud. It also most confront the growing world of high-frequency trading, a business that continues to confound the agency, and money market funds, which the S.E.C. is seeking to rein in.

On Monday, industry groups applauded the Senate’s move. “Her long experience and notable accomplishments as an advocate for the public interest will serve her well in her new role as S.E.C. chair, carrying out the agency’s vital missions of protecting investors and overseeing our capital markets,” Paul Schott Stevens, the chief executive of the Investment Company Institute, a trade group representing money market funds, said in a statement.

The Senate’s move on Monday was widely expected. Ms. White won broad support last month from the Senate Banking Committee, which voted 21-to-1 vote in her favor.

Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, cast the lone vote against her, citing her turns through the revolving door that connects government and private practice. Mr. Brown expressed concern that Ms. White, who represented JPMorgan in financial crisis cases and Morgan Stanley’s board in vetting a chief executive, could carry conflicts of interest.

“I don’t question Mary Jo White’s integrity or skill as an attorney,” Mr. Brown said at the time. “But I do question Washington’s long-held bias toward Wall Street and its inability to find watchdogs outside of the very industry that they are meant to police.”

To sidestep potential conflicts, Ms. White will recuse herself for one year from most matters involving former clients. She further vowed “as far as can be foreseen” never to return to Debevoise & Plimpton, the firm where she built a lucrative legal practice.

Ms. White’s supporters also point to her long tenure as a prosecutor. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York called her “tough as nails” during her time as the first female United States attorney in Manhattan.

As a federal prosecutor in New York City for more than a decade, she helped oversee the prosecution of the crime figure John Gotti and directed the case against those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. She also supervised the original investigation into Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

With Wall Street, Ms. White has already signaled a hard line.

“It will be a high priority throughout my tenure to further strengthen the enforcement function of the S.E.C.,” she said at her confirmation hearing last month. “It must be fair, but it also must be bold and unrelenting.”

A.I.G. Seeks to Bar Greenberg From Suing U.S. on Its Behalf

The American International Group already ruled out suing the federal government over its bailout during the financial crisis. Now it is asking a federal judge to stop its former chief executive from suing in its name.

The insurer has formally demanded that its onetime leader, Maurice R. Greenberg, stop pursuing so-called derivative claims in his $25 billion lawsuit against the government that would allow him to fight on the company’s behalf.

“A.I.G.’s directors had every right to decide, in the exercise of their business judgment, that suing the government for its rescue of A.I.G. is not the right thing for A.I.G. to do, and that A.I.G.’s interests are better served by focusing on the future and not joining litigation concerning the past,” the insurer said in its filing. “Under well settled Delaware law, Starr cannot usurp the right of A.I.G.’s board to make this business judgment.”

A.I.G.’s request, made late Friday in the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, doesn’t seek to bar Mr. Greenberg’s claims on behalf of himself and other shareholders. The former chief has contended that the “onerous” terms of the bailout wrongly cost A.I.G. investors billions of dollars.

But it does note that the company’s directors unanimously chose not to join the lawsuit in January, deeming Mr. Greenberg’s fight unlikely to succeed. The former A.I.G. chief has contended in court filings that the company was under pressure from its savior, the federal government, not to partner with him in the lawsuit.

The prospect of A.I.G.’s joining the suit prompted a wave of outrage among politicians and the public, leading some lawmakers to excoriate the insurer as “the poster company for corporate ingratitude and chutzpah.”

For its part, the federal government supported A.I.G.’s request in a separate filing, as well as sought the dismissal of Mr. Greenberg’s lawsuit in its entirety.

A.I.G.'s Request to Bar Greenberg Derivative Lawsuit

The Fine Line Between Political Intelligence and Insider Trading

Life in Washington is all about information - who will support or oppose an initiative, how will an agency address an issue in its rules, and when will a decision be announced. The pervasive role of the government in the economy makes that information particularly valuable to investors. And that can lead some to get a jump on the market if they learn about changes in policy before others.

“Well-timed” trading before a public disclosure of material information has all the hallmarks of insider trading. The problem is that the imprecise rules governing insider trading are an ineffective means to regulate how political intelligence firms gather, analyze and selectively disseminate such information to their clients.

Political intelligence has become a hot topic these days because of its potential to move markets. Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported about an investment firm in Washington that correctly predicted a decision by the government about reimbursement of Medicare costs; that information led to a jump of more than 6 percent in the shares of health insurers before the close of trading.

While that certainly looks questionable, trying to regulate firms that seek government information is difficult because of the lack of a definition of what constitutes “political intelligence” that would distinguish it from the ordinary analysis of governmental operations. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office points out just how hard it would be to try to adopt workable rules for the industry whose sole purpose is to gather such information.

Congress mandated the report as part of the Stock Act - for Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge - passed last year in response to reports that some legislators were reaping outsize gains on their investments. The law made it clear that Congress and its staff members must obey laws that prohibit insider trading, something that wasn’t clear before last year. A Senate proposal to mandate disclosure by political intelligence firms was scuttled in favor of the Government Accountability Office report, a classic means of burying an issue.

In conducting interviews with firms dealing in government information, the Government Accountability Office found that “the prevalence of the sale of political intelligence is not known and is therefore difficult to quantify,” and that it can be “especially difficult to make a determination that a sale of nonpublic information has occurred.”

In addition to the difficulty in identifying what constitutes political intelligence, the report discusses the many hurdles that the Securities and Exchange Commission would face if it wanted to pursue an insider trading case based on information disclosed by a political intelligence firm to its clients (particularly if the firm itself does not trade directly on the information).

Political intelligence is a mix of public information and tidbits gleaned from interactions with government officials. Particular information may be incorporated into a broader discussion of political developments that is sold to a number of clients â€" not all of whom are engaged in stock market investing. The analysis often involves opinions about where the government might be leaning on a particular issue, so it might be hard for the government to determine what is nonpublic information and what is just an opinion about future government conduct.

The product sold as political intelligence deals with broad factors that affect an industry or segment of the economy, and rarely would the focus be on a specific company because legislation and administrative rules usually do not reach that level of detail. That makes the information quite different from what is usually seen in insider trading cases, which mostly involve nonpublic data about an individual company.

A crucial element in any insider trading case is proving the information received was both material and confidential. When dealing with political intelligence, the S.E.C.’s ability to prove each could be problematic.

So what constitutes “material” information Broadly, it is data that a reasonable investor would consider important in deciding whether to act. The more general the information, the less likely it can be considered material.

Political intelligence may not meet the standard of “material” information when it is about broad trends in government policy. For instance, whether the Federal Reserve will continue to keep interest rates low would be difficult to link to a particular company’s prospects. And when confidential information is mixed with publicly available data, it becomes even harder to prove a political intelligence report met the required materiality standard.

A greater challenge would be showing that the information was confidential. Washington is rife with leaks, some of which are even planned as a means of sending up a so-called trial balloon to gauge public reaction to a new policy. So it might be difficult to show where the information came from or that a government official disclosed it in breach of a fiduciary duty in order to aid insider trading by the recipient.

In fact, it is questionable whether insider trading laws would even apply to the bulk of the analysis provided by political intelligence firms. In Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the role “analysts in general can play in revealing information that corporations may have reason to withhold from the public is an important one.” The same could be said about the disclosure of information about the government when its policies have a much greater impact on the public than any individual company.

Thus, the insider trading laws are a weak means of policing firms that specialize in gathering government information. The prohibition on insider trading is not crafted to deal with cases in which information about a broad segment of the economy could influence a decision about what type of investment to make.

Senator Charles E. Grassley said that he planned to introduce legislation to require political intelligence firms to register and disclose their contacts with government officials, highlighting the report about Medicare reimbursement as an example of the need for greater regulation. Increased disclosure by political intelligence firms might provide a number of benefits, if Congress can come up with a workable definition of what constitutes political intelligence that would not impact how journalists and other analysts scrutinize government policy.

The insider trading prohibition, however, would be ill suited as a means to police how these firms operate because of the many hurdles to proving a violation.

Occidental Board to Defend Search for New Chief

Occidental Petroleum‘s board would like everyone to know that there’s no discord at the top of the company,  reports to the contrary notwithstanding.

The oil producer is expected to say on Monday that its directors unanimously support the plan to find a successor to its chief executive, Stephen I. Chazen. Perhaps more important, the board will say that the process isn’t being guided by Occidental’s outgoing executive chairman, Ray R. Irani.

The company is hoping to lay rest to rumors that it faces a struggle for control, as it tries to lift a sagging stock price. Since Mr. Chazen took over in May 2011, Occidental’s shares have sunk more than 27 percent.

It is also hoping to win support from proxy advisory firms ahead of the company’s annual board elections.

The unusual statement follows a report by The Wall Street Journal last month that the board was divided over plans to replace Mr. Chazen, who is 66. In particular, the article said that earlier this year, Mr. Irani had suggested bringing in a former Occidental executive as chief executive, a move opposed by other directors.

The company announced on Feb. 14 that it planed to find a replacement for Mr. Chazen. It is working with Russell Reynolds Associates, an executive search firm, according to people briefed on the matter.

The debate over Mr. Chazen’s status has been seen by investors as a referendum on the company’s future. Analysts have speculated about whether Occidental may be headed for a breakup, something that Mr. Irani â€" whose eight million shares make him its 16th-biggest investor, according to Bloomberg â€" is said to oppose.

Mr. Irani, 78, stepped down as chief executive two years ago following activist investor pressure over a staggeringly large pay package.

Occidental’s directors will say in Monday’s statement that they debated the move without Mr. Irani present, and unanimously agreed to being the search.

“In regard to recent press articles and inaccurate speculation, the independent directors reiterate that there is no ‘fight at the top,’” the board said in a statement. “There were no schisms, nor philosophical divisions in the directors’ decision.”

Mr. Irani will reiterate that he intends to fully retire from the oil company as scheduled at the end of 2014.

And Mr. Chazen confirmed that while the move to replace him wasn’t his choice, he will continue to serve as chief executive until his successor is found.

“I did not ask to leave at this time, but I respect the board’s decision to seek a new generation of leadership,” he will say in a statement.

With Lufkin Deal, G.E. Continues to Plumb the Oil Patch

With its $3.3 billion takeover of Lufkin Industries, General Electric continues to ride the boom in the oil patch.

Since 2007, the conglomerate’s oil and gas unit has struck $11 billion worth of acquisitions â€" not including Monday’s announcement â€" to bolster its drilling services offerings. Among those deals was the $3 billion purchase of Dresser in 2010 and the $1.9 billion takeover of Vetco in 2007.

But it was the 2011 deal for John Wood’s well-support business that helped pave the way for the Lufkin transaction. That $2.8 billion purchase gave G.E. a line of specialized pumps used for enhanced recovery from big oil wells.

Buying Lufkin would add a complementary business of artificial lifts for use in drill platforms, as well as a line of industrial gear boxes used by several customers, including G.E. itself. Daniel C. Heintzelman, the chief executive of G.E.’s oil and gas unit, estimated in an interview that more than 90 percent of wells around the world either use or will need artificial lift.

“Lufkin has a very good complementary set of technologies that we’d love to invest in,” he said. “This is a company we can bring more comprehensively to the global marketplace.”

Mr. Heintzelman added that the industrial giant is continuing to bet big on drilling. Exploration in shale, the hardened rock formations behind the surge in energy production, is expected to grow by 10 percent or more a year for up to a decade.

G.E. announced last week that it would build a global research center for oil and gas in Oklahoma City, focusing at first on unconventional resources like shale natural gas.

At the moment, G.E.’s oil and gas offerings are well rounded, thanks to those investments, Mr. Heintzelman said. The conglomerate’s portfolio includes technologies for both on- and off-shore exploration, as well as for transporting and refining petroleum.

Mr. Heintzelman said that the plan now is to invest in G.E.’s current businesses to stir up organic growth â€" though he added that as the energy boom continues apace, more acquisition opportunities may arise.

JPMorgan Works to Shore Up Support for Dimon

JPMorgan Chase board members plan to meet with some big shareholders to make their case that Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief executive, should remain its chairman as well, Susanne Craig and Jessica Silver-Greenberg report in DealBook. The campaigning is unusually proactive this year, shareholders say, reflecting fears within JPMorgan that investors may be dissatisfied with management after last year’s multibillion-dollar trading debacle.

A vote to split the roles of chief executive and chairman would not be binding, but it would put pressure on the board and indicate that shareholders have lost faith in Mr. Dimon. “If the vote goes against the company and the board decides to split the role, some board members and shareholders are concerned that Mr. Dimon might resign rather than accept what would most likely be regarded as an affront,” DealBook writes. “Several shareholders have said privately that succession is a major factor in their decision-making process. In meetings with directors, the shareholders said they expected to ask about succession planning, and the board’s ability to exert influence on bank management.”

While it is hard to predict how the vote will turn out, a few big shareholders can make a difference. Last year, about 40 percent of investors supported a proposal to split the roles. This year, firms that advise shareholders are expected to recommend again that the roles be separated. “Other big investors, including some that voted to keep the roles together last year, remain undecided, according to a number of shareholders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of policies against talking to the media.”

AS C.E.O. PAY RISES MODESTLY, PERKS SOAR  |  Last year was all about perks for chief executives. Median pay for the 100 highest-paid chief executives at big American companies rose just 2.8 percent last year to more than $14 million. Perks, meanwhile, rose 18.7 percent from the previous year to $320,635, according to an analysis by Equilar for The New York Times.

Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts, for instance, enjoyed more than a million dollars’ worth of personal travel on his company’s private jet. The chief executive of Hertz, Mark Frissora, logged nearly a half-million dollars’ worth of personal travel on the corporate jet. The data, while preliminary, show how compensation has changed after the Dodd-Frank law, which requires companies to ask shareholders for input on pay. “In an age when shareholders can now make their collective views known publicly, it can seem downright provocative to let the company pick up the bill” for lavish perks, Nelson D. Schwartz writes in The Times. Alan Johnson, a consultant who advises boards on how best to structure compensation packages, called it “dumb with a capital D.”

But there are signs that some companies may be thinking deeply about their pay practices. Alan R. Mulally of Ford Motor and James P. Gorman of Morgan Stanley faced pay cuts last year for their companies’ weak performance. “That’s the way it’s supposed to be,” Gretchen Morgenson, a columnist for The New York Times, writes.

Even the highest-earning C.E.O.’s on the list from Equilar did not make as much as the kings of private equity and hedge funds, Pradnya Joshi writes in The New York Times. For instance, Leon Black, C.E.O. of Apollo Global Management, took in more than $125 million; only $287,000 was his base compensation and the rest was distributions from his shares in the firm.

A chart showing the 100 highest-paid C.E.O.’s of public companies, with Lawrence J. Ellison of Oracle on top, followed by Richard M. Bracken of the hospital chain HCA and Robert A. Iger of Disney, is available here.

YAHOO CHIEF WOOS START-UPS  |  Marissa Mayer, who is trying to infuse Yahoo with an entrepreneurial spirit, “has been on a splashy shopping spree,” buying six start-ups since she took the reins last year, The New York Times writes. “Increasingly, entrepreneurs say, she is getting personally involved in acquisitions, focusing particularly on mobile-minded engineers. She is also trying to reverse Yahoo’s reputation as a company that acquires talent and innovative technologies and then lets them wither.” Still, “despite the string of purchases, some say Ms. Mayer’s pitch â€" which could be a part of the biggest technology turnaround since Steven P. Jobs’s return to Apple in 1996 â€" seems as if it is still in rehearsal.”

The process of valuing a start-up can seem more like art than science, especially when the company has no revenue. “I have a vision of how suitors decide how much to offer for a start-up they want to buy,” Nick Bilton writes on the Bits blog. “Several executives go into a conference room. Each scribbles a number on a piece of paper and places it in a hat. Then the chief executive pulls out a number, and there it is.”

ON THE AGENDA  |  Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew begins a two-day European trip to meet with leaders representing the European Union, Germany and France. Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, gives a keynote speech at a conference of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta at 7:15 p.m. Alcoa reports earnings after the market closes. Bharat Masrani, who is set to take over as chief executive of the Toronto-Dominion Bank next year, is on CNBC at 4:40 p.m.

BANKERS ON THE SYLLABUS  |  Once considered out of fashion, the study of capitalism has a new status in academic circles since the financial crisis, The New York Times writes. “After decades of ‘history from below,’ focusing on women, minorities and other marginalized people seizing their destiny, a new generation of scholars is increasingly turning to what, strangely, risked becoming the most marginalized group of all: the bosses, bankers and brokers who run the economy.”

Mergers & Acquisitions »

Anheuser-Busch Says Merger Deal Clears an Antitrust Hurdle  |  Anheuser-Busch InBev said it had resolved United States antitrust concerns over its $20.1 billion acquisition of Grupo Modelo, the maker of Corona beer and other brands. DealBook »

U.P.S. Appeals Decision Blocking TNT Express Takeover  |  United Parcel Service has appealed a decision by European antitrust authorities that blocked its proposed $6.7 billion takeover bid for the Dutch shipping company TNT Express. DealBook »

Chernin Said to Bid $500 Million for Hulu  |  Peter Chernin, a former News Corporation president, “has bid around $500 million for Hulu, the online video streaming service he helped create in 2007, according to two sources with knowledge of Hulu’s sale process,” Reuters reports. REUTERS

Dell Offers to Reimburse Icahn for Deal Work, With Strings Attached  |  To get his out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed, Carl C. Icahn must agree to refrain from running a proxy fight against Dell’s board or filing a lawsuit against the company, according to a letter sent to him by a special committee of Dell’s board. DealBook »

Merger of Greek Banks Is Halted by Government  | 
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Little Accountability for Directors, Despite Poor Performance  |  Directors at financial institutions faced few consequences for their poor decisions, before and after the financial crisis, according to a study, Steven M. Davidoff writes in the Deal Professor column. DealBook »

INVESTMENT BANKING »

Stock Rally May Last, Even After Highs  |  “It seems that buying high â€" or at least at new highs â€" may not be such a bad strategy after all,” James B. Stewart writes in his column for The New York Times. NEW YORK TIMES

Growing in Popularity, Junk Bonds Cause Concern  |  “Junk bonds have never been more popular, even if they no longer deserve to be called high-yield,” Floyd Norris writes in his column for The New York Times. “The yield on such bonds has fallen to the lowest level on record,” roughly 5.7 percent at the end of the quarter. NEW YORK TIMES

In China, Questions Over Riskiness of Banks  |  The growth of the “shadow banking” system in China is “reinforcing suspicions that bank balance sheets reflect only a fraction of the actual credit risk lurking in the financial system,” Reuters writes. REUTERS

UBS Aided Purchase of Stake in Chinese Insurer  |  The Swiss banking giant UBS’s $5.5 billion loan resolves a mystery over how the Charoen Pokphand Group bought the stake without financing from the state-run China Development Bank. DealBook »

PRIVATE EQUITY »

Wrestling’s Private Equity Champion  |  Michael Novogratz, a principal at the Fortress Investment Group who is a former Princeton wrestler, is trying to get wresting restored to the Olympics after the International Olympic Committee voted to eliminate the sport from the Games starting in 2020. DealBook »

K.K.R. Hires Deutsche Bank Executive in Leveraged Finance  | 
WALL STREET JOURNAL

HEDGE FUNDS »

Investors in Vinik Hedge Fund Said to Request Withdrawals  |  Vinik Asset Management, the hedge fund firm run by Jeffrey Vinik, is facing $1.5 billion of redemption requests, or about 18 percent of the firm’s $8 billion in assets, according to The Wall Street Journal, which cites unidentified people briefed on the matter. WALL STREET JOURNAL

Ackman Says J.C. Penney Chief Has Made ‘Big Mistakes’  | 
REUTERS

I.P.O./OFFERINGS »

Why Zynga’s Chief Got Fired From Past Jobs  |  “I thought of myself as C.E.O. at every company I was at,” Mark Pincus, the chief executive of Zynga, told The New York Times. “Not many companies are set up so people low in the hierarchy can challenge everything like a C.E.O.” NEW YORK TIMES

Qatar Plans I.P.O. for $12 Billion Investment Vehicle  | 
FINANCIAL TIMES

VENTURE CAPITAL »

In Silicon Valley, a Tax Benefit Comes Under Scrutiny  |  It is not uncommon for technology companies to offer employees free food, but that benefit has drawn the interest of the Internal Revenue Service, “according to attorneys who practice in the area, examining whether the free food is a fringe benefit on which employees should pay additional tax,” The Wall Street Journal writes. WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Bulwark Against Patent Litigation  |  A start-up called Unified Patents aims to ward off patent lawsuits against its members, which include Google, The Wall Street Journal writes. WALL STREET JOURNAL

LEGAL/REGULATORY »

Judge Approves MF Global Liquidation Plan  |  Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court cleared the way on Friday for the defunct brokerage firm MF Global to sell its remaining assets and return money to creditors. DealBook »

Judge Approves Bank of America’s Settlement Over Merrill Lynch  |  The $2.4 billion settlement that Bank of America reached with investors over the acquisition of Merrill Lynch was “hard fought,” a judge said, according to Bloomberg News. BLOOMBERG NEWS

Chairman of Finance Panel Has Ties to Growing Group of Lobbyists  |  Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has “a sizable constellation of former aides working as tax lobbyists,” The New York Times writes. NEW YORK TIMES

Central Banks Move Toward Riskier Assets, Survey Shows  |  With yields falling on high-rated government bonds, most central banks in a survey were more inclined to invest in equities than a year ago, Reuters reports. REUTERS

Hong Kong Broker Fined for Hyping Undisclosed Trades  |  Sky Cheung was fined about $65,000 and had his stockbroking license suspended for 30 months on Wednesday after Hong Kong’s securities regulator found he had, on 25 occasions, bought stocks through his wife’s account and then wrote positively about those stocks in his newspaper columns. DealBook »

Ex-Credit Suisse Trader Pleads Not Guilty to Manipulating Bond Prices  |  Kareem Serageldin, a former trader at Credit Suisse, has pleaded not guilty to inflating the prices of mortgage-backed bonds, and is scheduled to appear in court again on Friday, Reuters reports. REUTERS

Intrade, an Online Betting Site, Faces Liquidation  |  Intrade “is facing liquidation because of a $700,000 cash shortfall, a development that comes a month after it halted trading and froze its customer accounts,” The New York Times reports. NEW YORK TIMES

A Bankruptcy, and Now a Pension Test  |  The question is whether the bondholders can get the bankruptcy court to force Stockton out of Calpers, perhaps as the price for continuing its Chapter 9 case, Stephen J. Lubben writes in the In Debt column. DealBook »

Clean Power Finance Raises $37 Million

Clean Power Finance, an online platform that provides software and financial services to solar power professionals and investors, has raised a fresh $37 million, in a sign that enthusiasm for the solar sector has not dimmed entirely.

Investors, particularly since the bankruptcy of the solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, have been shying away from companies that develop alternative sources of energy, risky ventures that can suck up enormous amounts of capital before becoming commercially viable.

But as the cost of rooftop solar systems has plummeted and demand has increased, big investors have been supporting a handful of companies that finance or install the equipment, rather than make them.

“Silicon Valley investors are looking for business models that look like what they’ve invested in in other sectors,” said Nat Kreamer, the chief executive of Clean Power Finance. “It’s that high-scale, high-margin business model that’s really attractive.”

He added that investors experiencing a “solar hardware hangover” were recognizing that there is money to be made on the deployment end of the sector, which is swelling with both fast-growing companies and new entrants.

Last year, the Blackstone Group spent more than $2 billion to acquire Vivint, a home security provider with a robust solar division. Sunrun received a $60 million investment led by Madrone Capital Partners and a $200 million commitment from Credit Suisse to support the installation of residential rooftop systems, according to the solar company. And SolarCity, which provides systems for residential, commercial and government customers, pulled off an initial public offering of its stock, rare these days in clean tech.

With its third round of financing, Clean Power Finance has brought its total to about $62 million, Mr. Kreamer said. The investors include venture capitalists, large energy companies and banks like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Edison International.

The participation of Edison International, the parent company of the utility Southern California Edison, as well as other big energy companies that declined to be identified, shows how utilities are becoming more interested in owning a piece of the rooftop solar market, he said.

Clean Power Finance’s approach differs from companies like SolarCity and Sunrun, which Mr. Kreamer helped start. Such companies generally offer customers low-cost or free solar systems in exchange for payments for the electricity produced at a rate below that for utility power.

Instead, Clean Power Finance runs a kind of online business-to-business marketplace for installers, manufacturers, developers and investors, and it provides software and financial services. One feature allows sales representatives to judge the viability of solar for potential customers and generate immediate cost estimates.

The company manages more than $500 million in project financing for corporate and institutional partners like Google and Morgan Stanley, executives said.

Clean Power Finance Raises $37 Million

Clean Power Finance, an online platform that provides software and financial services to solar power professionals and investors, has raised a fresh $37 million, in a sign that enthusiasm for the solar sector has not dimmed entirely.

Investors, particularly since the bankruptcy of the solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, have been shying away from companies that develop alternative sources of energy, risky ventures that can suck up enormous amounts of capital before becoming commercially viable.

But as the cost of rooftop solar systems has plummeted and demand has increased, big investors have been supporting a handful of companies that finance or install the equipment, rather than make them.

“Silicon Valley investors are looking for business models that look like what they’ve invested in in other sectors,” said Nat Kreamer, the chief executive of Clean Power Finance. “It’s that high-scale, high-margin business model that’s really attractive.”

He added that investors experiencing a “solar hardware hangover” were recognizing that there is money to be made on the deployment end of the sector, which is swelling with both fast-growing companies and new entrants.

Last year, the Blackstone Group spent more than $2 billion to acquire Vivint, a home security provider with a robust solar division. Sunrun received a $60 million investment led by Madrone Capital Partners and a $200 million commitment from Credit Suisse to support the installation of residential rooftop systems, according to the solar company. And SolarCity, which provides systems for residential, commercial and government customers, pulled off an initial public offering of its stock, rare these days in clean tech.

With its third round of financing, Clean Power Finance has brought its total to about $62 million, Mr. Kreamer said. The investors include venture capitalists, large energy companies and banks like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Edison International.

The participation of Edison International, the parent company of the utility Southern California Edison, as well as other big energy companies that declined to be identified, shows how utilities are becoming more interested in owning a piece of the rooftop solar market, he said.

Clean Power Finance’s approach differs from companies like SolarCity and Sunrun, which Mr. Kreamer helped start. Such companies generally offer customers low-cost or free solar systems in exchange for payments for the electricity produced at a rate below that for utility power.

Instead, Clean Power Finance runs a kind of online business-to-business marketplace for installers, manufacturers, developers and investors, and it provides software and financial services. One feature allows sales representatives to judge the viability of solar for potential customers and generate immediate cost estimates.

The company manages more than $500 million in project financing for corporate and institutional partners like Google and Morgan Stanley, executives said.

New Firm Plans to Invest in Lawsuits

Litigation finance, an obscure corner of Wall Street, is gaining more interest.

A new firm, Gerchen Keller Capital, has raised $100 million to invest in high-stakes litigation between companies, becoming the latest investment shop to dive into the relatively new sector.

Run by four men with backgrounds in finance and law, Gerchen Keller Capital began this year and closed on its first investment earlier this month. The firm plans to invest exclusively in litigation between institutions, whether on the plaintiff or defendant side.

The prospect of double-digit returns has lured some prominent lawyers to set up litigation finance firms in recent years, bankrolling plaintiffs in exchange for a slice of the potential winnings. Some can invest in defendants as well, by advancing legal fees and then collecting a return if the case is successful. (Such deals are not loans; if cases are not successful, the investors lose their capital.)

Two of the large firms in the field, Burford and Juridica Capital Management, which listed their funds in London, started in 2009 and 2007, respectively. Two others run by former lawyers, BlackRobe Capital and Fulbrook Management, began in 2011. In 2012, the litigation finance team at Credit Suisse left to form Parabellum Capital.

Gerchen Keller Capital, which is based in Chicago, plans to avoid consumer or class-action litigation, aiming instead to appeal to prominent businesses involved in legal disputes.

“The brand we’re attempting to build here is to be the premier capital provider for companies with meritorious claims that we believe should prevail,” said Ashley Keller, the firm’s chief investment officer.

The firm’s first investment is with a plaintiff in a commercial case in the United States, but the founders would not reveal more information about the case. The plan is for investments to average $5 million in size.

This type of work requires a combination of legal and financial expertise. “It was a nice marriage of all of our backgrounds,” said Adam Gerchen, the chief executive.

Mr. Gerchen and Mr. Keller previously worked together at Alyeska Investment Group, a Chicago-based hedge fund. Before that, Mr. Gerchen was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs, and Mr. Keller was a partner at the law firm Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott.

The idea for a litigation finance firm came at Alyeska, where the two men would invest in the stocks of companies involved in legal disputes.

“We thought the next logical step was to cut out the middleman, so to speak, and invest directly in the claims,” Mr. Gerchen said.

They left the hedge fund and added two more to their team: Travis Lenkner, a former senior counsel at the Boeing Company, who is the new firm’s chief underwriting officer; and Terrance Carlson, a former general counsel at Synthes and at Medtronic, who is the chairman of the investment committee.

The industry they are entering has come under attack by critics including the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has said that these investment firms can inappropriately influence cases or encourage frivolous lawsuits.

But the Gerchen Keller team counters by saying they provide an important service to corporations, and that they choose cases carefully.

“We won’t be successful if we’re investing in claims that we don’t believe have a very good chance of succeeding,” Mr. Lenkner said.

G.E. to Buy Lufkin Industries for $3.3 Billion

General Electric agreed on Monday to buy Lufkin Industries for about $3.3 billion, adding the maker of industrial lifts to its oil and gas businesses.

Under the terms of the deal, G.E. will pay $88.50 a share in cash, a 38 percent premium to Lufkin’s Friday closing price.

The deal is the latest by G.E.’s oil and natural gas unit, one of the fastest-growing parts of the conglomerate. The acquisition is meant to build upon G.E.’s acquisition of the John Wood Group’s well-support business in 2011.

Based in the Texas town of the same name, Lufkin focuses on lift equipment for oil and gas platforms. Lufkin reported $81.9 million in net income last year, its third straight year of consecutive growth, atop $1.3 billion in revenue.

The conglomerate said that Monday’s deal will allow it to service oil and gas wells at any stage of production.

“Advanced technologies, combined with new drilling practices, are revolutionizing the oil and gas industry,” Daniel C. Heintzelman, the chief executive of G.E.’s oil and gas unit, said in a statement. “In turbomachinery, Lufkin is already one of our suppliers for turbo gearing and specialty bearings products, and this acquisition allows us to further utilize their technologies and expertise for our customers.”

The deal is expected to close in the second half of the year.

General Electric was advised by Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Lufkin was advised by Simmons & Company and the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

Hong Kong Broker Fined for Hyping Undisclosed Trades

HONG KONG-Hong Kong’s bustling capital markets have seen many cunning and sophisticated attempts to turn a profit by less- than-scrupulous means.

Sky Cheung’s was not one of them.

On Wednesday, Mr. Cheung, a local stock broker and financial columnist, was fined 500,000 Hong Kong dollars, or about $65,000, by the Securities and Futures Commission and had his brokering license suspended for 30 months.

The regulator found that 25 times between March 2009 and March 2010, Mr. Cheung had bought stocks through an undisclosed account registered in his wife’s name and, shortly afterwards, published newspaper columns talking up those stocks.

‘‘Cheung put himself in a conflict-of-interest position by purchasing the stocks shortly before favorable comments were published in his column and sold them at a profit shortly after publication of the column,’’ the commission said Wednesday in a statement. ‘‘Cheung’s conduct has cast serious doubt on his ability to carry on the regulated activity competently, honestly and fairly, as well as his reputation, character and reliability.’’

Hong Kong’s financial watchdog has scored a number of successes in recent years as it seeks to crack down on market malfeasance, including a high-profile criminal conviction of a Morgan Stanley managing director for insider trading, and a current push to make the banks that sponsor initial public offerings criminally liable for the accuracy of disclosures made by the companies they are bringing to market.

Mr. Cheung’s missteps were of a more mundane nature. Licensed brokers in Hong Kong are permitted to trade on the side for personal profit, but must disclose this to their employers and have the activity vetted by their senior managers. Mr. Cheung did not declare his activity to his employer at the time, the local brokerage Quam Group (He now works at the Hong Kong unit of Taiwan’s Polaris Securities).

According to the regulator, Mr. Cheung’s tactic was to buy stocks through his wife’s account and then write positively about them in his column ‘‘Investment Sky,’’ which appears twice a week in the popular Chinese-language newspaper Apple Daily. He would then typically cash out at a profit between one and three days after publication.

On several occasions, he would write the columns first, and instruct his assistant to delay their publication until after he had time to buy the stocks he was pumping, the regulator said. Other times, Mr. Cheung denied any holdings in the stocks he was writing about, although they had been purchased through his wife’s account. The regulator said its fine was equal to the profit he made on his undisclosed trades.

In his most recent Apple Daily column on Friday, Mr. Cheung did not single out specific stocks, but waded into a local debate about whether authorities in China and Hong Kong have been over-regulating the market and scaring away investors. He cited the Chinese saying that ‘‘fish are caught where the waters are muddy,’’ then turned it around.

‘‘Of course there are no fish when the water is clear,’’ he wrote. ‘‘But if the water is too muddy that will kill a lot of fish.’’

U.P.S. Appeals Decision Blocking TNT Express Takeover

LONDON â€" United Parcel Service has appealed a recent decision by European antitrust authorities that blocked its $6.7 billion takeover bid for the Dutch shipping company TNT Express.

U.P.S. withdrew its offer for TNT in January after European authorities indicated they would block the deal because of antitrust concerns.

The ruling was a set back for U.P.S., which had planned to use the TNT Express operations across Europe to beef up its presence outside of the United States.

U.P.S., which is based in Atlanta, lodged its appeal against the European Commission’s decision last week, though the legal proceedings do not represent a renewed effort to buy TNT Express.

Instead, U.P.S. wants to ensure that any future international acquisitions are not blocked because of European authorities’ decision to prevent the deal for TNT Express due to competition fears, according to a U.P.S. spokesman.

While there are no plans in the short term to pursue a new deal with TNT Express, U.P.S. may revisit its plans depending on the outcome of its appeal against the European Commission’s recent decision and on market conditions, the spokesman added.

As part of its ruling against the proposed $6.7 billion takeover, European antitrust regulators said the deal would reduce the number of Continent-wide companies in the local small package shipping industry.

They ruled that only four companies - U.P.S., TNT, DHL and FedEx â€" had sufficient size across the Continent to offer competition, and that the combination of U.P.S. and TNT Express would limit consumers’ choice.

U.P.S. and TNT Express disagreed with that ruling, saying that several other smaller European shipping companies offered enough competition to satisfy antitrust concerns.

Judges are likely to take up to 18 months to rule on the appeal, which is the latest effort by companies to fight competition decisions from the European Union that have scuppered several recent deals.

Last year, Deutsche Börse appealed the decision by European authorities to block its proposed $9 billion merger with NYSE Euronext.

In a brief statement on Monday, TNT Express said it had taken note of U.P.S.’s decision, though the Dutch company plans to remain independent.

TNT Express’s share price tumbled almost 50 percent after U.P.S. withdrew its takeover offer in January, as investors fretted about the company’s future growth prospects. In morning trading in Amsterdam on Monday, the company’s stock price had risen less than 1 percent.

Last month, TNT Express agreed to sell its Chinese trucking business to a local private equity firm for an undisclosed fee, as part of its efforts to focus on a small number of core markets.