Total Pageviews

Seibu Pushes Aside Cerberus’ Call for New Directors

TOKOROZAWA, Japan-Cerberus Capital Management, the U.S. private equity giant embroiled in a public battle to revamp management at Japan’s Seibu Holdings, failed Tuesday to push through a bid to appoint new directors at the struggling conglomerate, the latest setback by foreign investors to shake up corporate Japan.

The battle’s outcome had been seen as a test of whether the lofty ambitions of attracting foreign capital, set by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as part of his driveto revive Japan’s economy, would translate to more openness among Japanese companies to work with investors overseas.

Cerberus paid more than 100 billion yen, or $1.07 billion at the current exchange rate, to lead a bailout of Seibu in 2007 following an accounting scandal, which led to the delisting of its shares. But Cerberus, still Seibu’s biggest shareholder, accused Seibu management of cutting off discussions as it moved to relist on the Tokyo Stock Exchange this year.

Cerberus, based in New York, has since urged Seibu, which operates Japanese railroads and hotels, to improve corporate governance, as well as profitability, to gain maximum value for shareholders in any relisting.

In March, Cerberus began an unsolicited tender offer to raise its stake in Seibu to 44.7 percent from 32! .4 percent, to win stronger influence over Seibu’s management. But the bid fell short and Cerberus gained only a 35.48 percent stake, thanks to a public campaign by Seibu against the offer, in which it claimed Cerberus had threatened to shut down local train lines and sell off Seibu’s baseball team â€" moves denied by Cerberus.

Cerberus’s latest proposal, presented at Seibu’s annual shareholders meeting outside Tokyo on Tuesday, would have increased Cerberus’s influence by appointing a new slate of directors to Seibu’s board, including former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle and former U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow.“Our overriding goal is to make Seibu an exemplar of corporate governance, transparency and business operations,” Louis Forster, chairman of Cerberus Asia Pacific Advisors, said last week before the showdown.

On Tuesday, Yoshiteru Suzuki, the senior managing director of Cerberus Japan, repeated the company’s proposal in at the shareholders’ meeting, urging Seibu’s usually docile investors to support the bid.

“We want to seek to make Seibu Holdings the type of success story that will spur more foreign investment to Japan,” Mr. Suzuki said. “Please listen to the management and make up your own mind.”

“This company is yours,” he added, to a smattering of applause from the shareholders. Some investors took the cue to speak out against Seibu.

“How can you take money from us shareholders and Cerberus, then tell us to stay silent?” one particularly animated attendee asked.

But Cerberus’s proposal was voted down, with the majority of shareholders p! resent vo! ting against, according to a Seibu tally. The result was met with applause from the floor.

“We believe Cerberus is trying to exert undue influence over Seibu’s board, and its interference will damage the long-term value of the company,” said Seibu’s chief executive, Takashi Goto.

The bid by Cerberus to revamp Seibu’s management is the latest attempt by foreign investors to make their mark and bring change to Japanese corporate governance, which critics have long said put the rights of shareholders behind the whims of management, to the detriment of a company’s value.

Another U.S. company, the hedge fund Third Point, has pressed Sony to spin off part of its entertainment arm to raise capital to rebuild the company’s electronics business. Third Point, led by the U.S. billionaire investor Daniel Loeb, has also asked for a seat n Sony’s board. Few analysts expect Sony to accept the proposal.



U.S. Civil Charges Against Corzine Are Seen as Near

Federal regulators are poised to sue Jon S. Corzine over the collapse of MF Global and the brokerage firm’s misuse of customer money during its final days, a blowup that rattled Wall Street and cast a spotlight on Mr. Corzine, the former New Jersey governor who ran the firm until its bankruptcy in 2011.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulated MF Global, plans to approve the lawsuit as soon as this week, accordig to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the case. In a rare move against a Wall Street executive, the agency has informed Mr. Corzine’s lawyers that it aims to file the civil case without offering him the opportunity to settle, setting up a legal battle that could drag on for years.

Without directly linking Mr. Corzine to the disappearance of more than $1 billion in customer money, the trading commission will probably blame the chief executive for failing to prevent the breach at a lower rung of the firm, the law enforcement officials said. If convicted, he could face millions of dollars in fines and possibly a ban from trading commodities, jeopardizing his future on Wall Street.

In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Corzine denounced the trading commission for planning to file what he called an “unprecedented and meritless civil enforcement action.”

The aggressive action would stand in contrast to the government’s investigations so far into the 2008 financial crisis! , many of which produced symbolic fines. In the case of Lehman Brothers, which imploded at the height of the crisis, no employee has ever been charged with civil or criminal wrongdoing.

An MF Global case, expected to be filed in federal court, could become something of an experiment for federal regulators under pressure to adopt a harder line against Wall Street. It would also thrust the trading commission â€" the financial industry’s smallest regulator â€" onto a bigger stage.

A case would darken the cloud over the legacy of Mr. Corzine, 66, who as a onetime Democratic governor and senator from New Jersey and a former chief of Goldman Sachs has long ben a confidant of leaders in Washington and on Wall Street.

But it would also suggest that authorities have all but removed a greater threat: criminal charges. After nearly two years of stitching together evidence, criminal investigators have concluded that porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the customer money to disappear, according to the law enforcement officials with knowledge of the case.

Still, the spokesman for Mr. Corzine, Steven Goldberg, said that the trading commission’s anticipated lawsuit “is not surprising considering the political pressure to hold someone liable for the failure of MF Global,” the largest Wall Street bankruptcy since the 2008 financial crisis. Lawmakers and even some agency officials, he noted, have publicly condemned the firm.

“If the C.F.T.C. brings this enforcement action, Mr. Corzine would welcome the opportunity to litigate this matter in an impartial venue, free from politically influenced prejudice and unfounded ! assertion! s, which have been frequently repeated despite the lack of a factual basis,” Mr. Goldberg said.

The trading commission has not told other top executives that they will be sued, according to lawyers briefed on the case. The regulator appears more likely to take aim at lower-level employees tasked with protecting customer accounts.

The agency faces a lower threshold for proving its charges than criminal authorities do. Prosecutors must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but the agency would only have to show a preponderance of the evidence.

Yet the trading commission is not expected to accuse Mr. Corzine of authorizing the breach of customer money, the officials with knowledge of the case said. Instead, the agency is likely to say that he failed to sufficiently supervise the firm and is subject to so-called control person liability, a legal provision that allows for the punishment of executives for the bad acts of lower-level employees.

As MF Global teetered on the brink of ollapse, employees in Chicago transferred customer money to plug holes in the firm’s own accounts, causing a shortfall for clients like hedge funds and farmers whose funds vanished into banks and clearinghouses. The money might have never disappeared, Mr. Goldberg said, if the banks had not pocketed the customers’ money.

“During the difficult final week, Mr. Corzine was never informed, nor was he ever given reason to believe, that customer funds were at risk or were being used improperly,” Mr. Goldberg said. “Justice would not be served if Mr. Corzine were to be blamed for alleged mistakes that were made without his knowledge.”

Some internal e-mails lend support to Mr. Corzine’s defense. An e-mail reviewed by The New York Times indicates that an employee in the firm’s Chicago office, Edith O’Brien, explicitly stated to Mr. Corzine that money was a “house wire,” meaning that it came from the firm’s own accounts, not from customers. Ms. O’Brien, who oversaw the tra! nsfer of ! customer money during the firm’s final week, has been a focus of the investigation since its onset.

For months, she declined to cooperate with authorities without receiving immunity from criminal prosecution. Federal authorities hesitated to grant her request, according to the officials close to the case, but started to reverse course this spring when they invited her to an interview.

For now, Ms. O’Brien is likely to receive immunity from criminal prosecution, but she or her direct bosses could still face a civil action from the trading commission, the officials said. Ms. O’Brien has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. in Manhattan declined to comment. The trading commission also declined to comment.

MF Global filed for bankruptcyon Halloween 2011. Months later, the trading commission’s investigation escalated even as criminal scrutiny petered out. Early this year, people involved in the case said, the regulator deposed Mr. Corzine.

The investigation presented a test for the agency’s enforcement division, which has adopted a more aggressive stance under David Meister, a former federal prosecutor who joined the agency in 2010.

Ultimately, Mr. Meister’s team warned Mr. Corzine’s lawyers that it planned to recommend an enforcement action against him. The division, according to people with knowledge of the case, planned to accuse the executive of a “failure to exercise adequate supervision,” stemming from a breakdown in the firm’s internal controls.

Mr. Goldberg said the allegation would be “nothing more than another example of Monday morning quarterbacking,” a defense first raised when MF Global’s bankruptcy trustee sued Mr. Corzine and his aides in April.

According to the lawsuit, an ! October 2! 010 internal report warned Mr. Corzine about certain “high risk” areas stemming from the lack of controls.

While such warning signs could support the trading commission’s case, it plans to level a second charge that could be more difficult to prove. In claiming “control person liability,” the agency must show that Mr. Corzine had control over Ms. O’Brien or any other employee who may have transferred customer money. It also must prove that he either “did not act in good faith” or knowingly “induced” an employee to break the law. While Mr. Corzine is thought to have received e-mails with estimates of customer money, authorities appear to lack a smoking gun.

The agency has successfully relied on the statutes that cover failure to supervise and control person liability in previous cases, but it has never used them in such a prominent action.

Mr. Goldberg said that regulators “regularly reviewed MF Global and had never found fault with its systems and procedures for maintining customer funds.”

Since the collapse of the firm, Mr. Corzine has kept a low public profile. Lately, however, he has ventured out a bit. He recently visited Central America for a humanitarian project involving children, for example. And last week, he was seen at an old haunt in Lower Manhattan, Esquires of Wall Street, an 81-year-old barbershop that Mr. Corzine has frequented since his days at Goldman.



Economists Are Asking: Did Bernanke Tip Fed’s Hand?

Is Ben Bernanke being too chatty?

That’s the question being put forward by some economists and others about Mr. Bernanke, the normally restrained Federal Reserve chairman, after his comments in May and last week about the economy and the central bank’s plans for eventually backing off its stimulus measures.

Last week, his comments that the economic recovery was surpassing forecasts sent the market into a tailspin because Wall Street was worried that the Fed would start easing its bond-buying program and raise interest rates sooner than many had anticipated. That, in turn, could slow the economy, some worry. Sinc then, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has fallen nearly 5 percent.

Mr. Bernanke, hardly one to be described as verbose, said far more during his news conference on Wednesday than he usually does â€" and he went further about the Fed’s policy plans than the committee itself had said earlier in its official statement.

He went so far that one of the Fed’s directors, James B. Bullard, publicly questioned the board’s decision to let Mr. Bernanke expound upon its thinking. In a statement, Mr. Bullard said he “felt that the committee’s decision to authorize the chairman to lay out a more elaborate plan for reducing the pace of asset purchases was inappropriately timed.”

He went on to say that “a more prudent approach would be to wait for more tangible signs that the economy was strengthening and that inflation was on a path to return toward target before making such an announcement.”

It wasn’t that long ago that any Fed chairman hardly said a word. Until 1994, the Fed did not even regularly issue a statement disclosing a change in policy after its monthly meeting. Alan Greenspan made an art out of talking in circles so that investors couldn’t divine his intentions.

Janet Yellen, the Fed’s vice chairwoman and a possible successor to Mr. Bernanke, explained in a recent speech that for most of the last century, the Fed’s communications policy was modeled on Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England, whose motto, she said, was, “Never explain, never excuse.”

Ever since the financial crisis, with calls for more transparency, Mr. Bernanke has taken a different tack, holding news conferences and providing specific details and timelines for the Fed’s policies.

In some instances, it has worked magnificently. By laying out a timetable for the Fed’s stimulus back in January 2012 â€" in which he explained t! he Fed’! s inflation and unemployment targets â€" he found a way to create a relative calm in the markets.

Questions about the communications strategy, however, were raised about whether he was oversharing. Would it become, as they might say on Twitter, T.M.I.? (Too Much Information.) The worry back then was that he would box himself into a specific timeline and that he would have a tricky time exiting his stimulus strategy.

Even before Mr. Bernanke spoke last week, he was being blamed for the recent market volatility. “The purpose of central-bank transparency was to give markets clarity and reduce volatility,” Ed Yardeni, president and chief investment strategist at Yadeni Research, told Bloomberg News two days before the Bernanke news conference.

“Instead, it’s increasing volatility and been counterproductive. Clearly the backup in bond yields and sell-off are disconcerting.”

In a perfect world, the Fed’s communications strategy should mean the markets are less erratic, not more.

However, with investors hanging on every syllable of every word that comes out of the mouths of Mr. Bernanke and the other board members, volatility seems to have been worse.

In fairness, everything is relative, so it is possible that the markets would act even more erratically if the communications policy was less straightforward. It is impossible to know. It’s the ultimate Catch-22.

During Mr. Bernanke’s news conference, he was asked whether his comments went beyond what the committee had agreed! on.

“There’s no change in policy involved here. There’s simply a clarification, helping people to think about where policy will evolve. So, it was thought that it might be best for me to explain that to this group,” Mr. Bernanke told reporters.

And yet, his words moved the market because they filled in gaps that a statement from the Fed could never fully communicate.

Ms. Yellen, in her speech, which was given to the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, said that the Fed’s move to be more transparent wasn’t just for the sake of transparency. She said the Fed’s utterances had become an important tool.

The first big communications moment for the Fed, she said, was in 2003 when the central bank was running out of options to spur growth because it had already cut the federal funds rate. So it decided to tell the market that it planned to keep rates low for a considerable period.

“The committee was using communication â€" mere words â€" as its primary monetary poicy tool. Until then, it was probably common to think of communication about future policy as something that supplemented the setting of the federal funds rate. In this case, communication was an independent and effective tool for influencing the economy,” she said.

Communication is indeed influencing the markets now. Whether it is too much of a good thing will only truly become apparent down the road.

Andrew Ross Sorkin is the editor-at-large of DealBook. Twitter: @andrewrsorkin



Icahn and Southeastern Press Case for Scrapping Dell Buyout

Two of Dell Inc.’s biggest outside investors on Monday laid out the most comprehensive defense of their plan for the company to date, while attacking the company’s planned $24.4 billion sale to Michael S. Dell and the investment firm Silver Lake.

In a presentation for fellow investors,  Carl C. Icahn and the money manager Southeastern Asset Management argued that Dell remained worth much more than the $13.65 a share that Mr. Dell and his partner are offering. Instead, the alternative proposal â€" in wich the company would buy back 1.1 billion shares at $14 each â€" would offer existing stockholders more money while giving them a chance to keep a piece of the company.

The presentation by Mr. Icahn and Southeastern, which was used as part of their presentation to the proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services, was meant to counter criticisms by both Mr. Dell and Silver Lake and by a special committee of the computer maker’s board. Both have said that the stock-buyback plan would leave the company over-indebted while still exposing shareholders to significant risk.

But Mr. Icahn and Southeastern contended that Dell could still move to transform itself into more of an enterprise software and services provider while remaining a publicly traded concern, pointing to exam! ples like Apple Inc. and I.B.M.

“Why is the board pushing a deal that would force stockholders to sell their shares at what Icahn and Southeastern perceive to be a substantially undervalued price?” the investors wrote in their presentation.

They also criticized the performance of Dell under the founder for which it is named: since Mr. Dell’s return in 2007, the company’s total stock return has fallen 44 percent, while its share of the PC market has dropped 25 percent.

Meanwhile, the investors argued that their proposal would leave Dell with less debt than the proposed leveraged buyout by Mr. Dell and Silver Lake. The alternative plan would give the cmpany a ratio of net debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of about 1.7 times, the two contended. Mr. Dell’s plan, by contrast, would lead to a ratio of 3.7 times.

Mr. Icahn and Southeastern also argued that the Dell special committee had made any alternative to the leveraged buyout plan all but impossible to accept, and that “go-shop” provisions aimed at flushing out higher offers often fail. (The two neglected to mention that an earlier proposal by Mr. Icahn, in which he would have paid $15 a share for 58 percent of the company, had been considered reasonably likely to lead to a superior offer. Mr. Icahn subsequently backed away from that model in favor of more indirect ways to gain control, like the stock buyback plan.)

The two dissidents are betting that they can apply heavy pressure to Mr. Dell. Under the terms of the leveraged buyout, a majority of shares not held by the company’s founder must be affirmatively voted in favor of that deal, or ! roughly 4! 3 percent of outstanding shares. Per those rules, abstentions count against the take-private transaction.

Mr. Icahn and Southeastern together own about 13 percent of Dell’s stock. A number of other investors representing more than 5 percent have previously expressed displeasure with Mr. Dell’s bid.

A vote on Mr. Dell’s offer is scheduled for July 18.



Exit From the Bond Market Is Turning Into a Stampede

Wall Street never thought it would be this bad.

Over the last two months, and particularly over the last two weeks, investors have been exiting their bond investments with unexpected ferocity, moves that continued through Monday.

A bond sell-off has been anticipated for years, given the long run of popularity that corporate and government bonds have enjoyed. But most strategists expected that investors would slowly transfer out of bonds, allowing interest rates to slowly drift up.

Instead, since the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, recently suggested that the strength of the economic recovery might alow the Fed to slow down its bond-buying program, waves of selling have convulsed the markets.

The recent pain has spilled over into stock markets, pushing the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index down an additional 1.2 percent on Monday. But the real pressure has been felt in the bigger and more closely watched bond market. The value of outstanding United States government 10-year notes has fallen 10 percent since a high in early May.

The selling has been most visible among retail investors, who have sold a record $48 billion worth of shares in bond mutual funds so far in June, according to the data company TrimTabs. But hedge funds and other big institutional investors have also been closing out positions or stepping back from the bond market.

“The feeling you are getting out there is that people are selling first and asking questions later,” said Hans Humes, chief executive of the hedge fund Greylock Capital.

The anxiety has been heightened by recent instability in the C! hinese banking sector, where lending has shown signs of freezing up. That led Chinese stocks down particularly sharply, with the Shanghai composite index ending Monday down 5.3 percent.

But Mr. Humes and many others in the market say they think that the recent swings are driven more by fear than by a rational assessment of what bonds are worth. This could lead to crises for some big investors who took speculative bets, but it makes many analysts skeptical that the panic will lead to any broader instability in the financial system.

“The fundamental story is not so bad â€" you are not talking about the system teetering on the edge of anything,” Mr. Humes said.

It was the strength of the underlying economy that Mr. Bernanke emphasized last Wednesday at a news conference where he explained the central bank’s impulse to pull back on its $85 billion a month bond-buying program.

The money the Fed spends on bonds is supposed to bolster the economy, but the cheap money coming from the Fd has also made it less expensive and easier for investors to make large, increasingly speculative bets on bond prices.

The Fed’s unusual bond purchases have given it far more influence over the market than at past turning points for interest rates. But Fed officials are clearly unhappy with the extent of the reaction to Mr. Bernanke’s statements. On Monday, some top Fed officials made public comments that appeared to be aimed at calming some of the market’s wild selling. Narayana Kocherlakota, the president of the regional Fed branch in Minnesota, said in a statement on the bank’s Web site that the Fed’s recent communications had left the “public with large amounts of residual uncertainty.”

Mr. Kocherlakota emphasized that the Fed still planned to support the economy until it grew significantly stronger.

The recent rout follows several years of generally falling interest rates and comfortable bond returns. The belief that the Fed was likely to maintain its stimulus in! to the fo! reseeable future caused many investors to continue piling into bonds, even through the first few months of this year. TrimTabs estimates that $1.2 trillion flowed into bond funds over the last four years.

But those good times bred complacency, and Mr. Bernanke’s recent comments have caused an abrupt change in perceptions.

The S.& P. 500 recovered from large losses early in the day to finish down 19.34 points, to 1,573.09, on Monday. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 0.9 percent, or 139.84 points, to 14,659.56. The Nasdaq composite index dropped 1.1 percent, or 36.49 points, to 3,320.76.

In the current fear-soaked atmosphere, market participants are looking over their shoulders, seeking to identify which firms or funds are sitting on big losses and might be forced to sell large lots of bonds. The most obvious contenders are those that bought bonds with borrowed money. In Wall Street parlance, that is called leverage. It can magnify returns when rates are low and prices are rising, butunwinding leveraged trades can deepen losses.

“The fact that we’re seeing these violent moves is a reflection that there was leverage there,” George Goncalves, a fixed-income strategist at Nomura, said. “This is definitely more than a hissy fit. Some people are being forced to sell.”

Usually the preserve of banks and hedge funds, leverage even spread into retail-focused bond funds in recent years when rates were at very low levels. Since 2008, about one-fifth of the exchange-traded funds that invest in longer-term bonds were leveraged, according to Savita Subramanian, an equity strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

The signs of stress have also been evident in the more ordinary exchange-traded funds, or E.T.F.’s, that hold bonds. These E.T.F.’s are very easy to sell at moments of panic, but the operators of the E.T.F.’s have found it harder to sell off the actual bonds. This has caused the value of the E.T.F.’s to sink further than the value of the underlying bonds.

On Friday, a municipal bond E.T.F. that is popular with retail investors fell 3.7 percent below the value of the bonds it was supposed to be holding, the so-called net asset value, according to ETF Global. On average over the last two months, the E.T.F., which trades uder the ticker symbol MUB, was only 0.6 percent below the value of its net asset value.

“It’s a self-fulfilling cycle until everyone gets exhausted,” said Peter Tchir, the founder of TF Market Advisors. “We don’t think we’ve seen the capitulation we need to hit bottom yet.”



More Use of Wiretaps Is Likely to Come in Trading Cases

The Justice Department continued its string of victories in insider trading cases after the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan affirmed the insider trading convictions of Raj Rajaratnam.

The decision validates the government’s use of wiretaps as a means to investigate this type of crime. In turn, prosecutors will have a strong impetus to employ this tool in other white-collar crime investigations.

The use of wiretaps to obtain evidence against Mr. Rajaratnam and a host of others, including the former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta, is a significant change in how prosecutors approached the insider-trading investigation. The Second Circuit gave the government a clean bill of health in how it obtained the authorization for the wiretaps, rejecting the claim that prosecutors acted improperly by misleading the court.

The federal Wiretap Act requires prosecuors to establish the “necessity” to listen to private conversations by showing, among other things, that less invasive investigative techniques have proved unsuccessful. A significant legal issue in the case was the finding by United States District Court Judge Richard J. Holwell that the affidavit submitted by the government was misleading because it failed to disclose an investigation of Mr. Rajaratnam by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Judge Holwell, who has since left the bench and entered private practice, found that the government acted with “reckless disregard for the truth” by not disclosing “clearly critical” information about the scope of the S.E.C. investigation. The affidavit did not discuss the fact that Mr. Rajaratnam had been deposed by the S.E.C. and his firm, the Galleon Group, had turned over extensive records related to its trading.

Yet, Judge Holwell still rejected Mr. Rajaratnam’s argument that the recordings, which were critical to proving his! guilt, should be suppressed because the information was not material to the decision to authorize the wiretap. This finding was challenged, while the government argued that it had acted properly. The judge’s criticism was particularly stinging; a finding that prosecutors acted recklessly raised questions about whether the government overstepped entirely in pursuing the case.

The appeals court rejected Judge Holwell’s conclusion that prosecutors were reckless, essentially finding that the failure to disclose extensive information about the S.E.C.’s investigation was irrelevant to its application. The Justice Department’s investigation was separate, so it was not required to reference a civil inquiry in asking for a wiretap for its own case.

In explaining why the affidavit did not detail the S.E.C.’s investigation of Mr. Rajaratnam, the prosecutor said that she had not considered it relevant because it was a separate investigation and not something available to the criminal investigatrs to gather information. The appeals court found this explanation plausible, undermining any inference that the Justice Department tried to pull a fast one in asking for a wiretap.

Not disclosing the fact that S.E.C. had run into a brick wall in its civil inquiry would have strengthened the request for a wiretap. Therefore, it could hardly be viewed as reckless to not disclose information that would be helpful.

The appeals court noted that “it is difficult to imagine a situation where the government would intentionally or ‘with reckless disregard’ omit information that would strengthen its ‘probable cause’ or ‘necessity’ showing.”

The ruling means that Mr. Gupta will not be able to argue that the wiretaps were improper during his appeal. Separately, Mr. Gupta has also argued that certain recordings should not have been admitted at his trial because he was not a party to the conversation. This ruling does not affect his ability to argue that point.

The Second! Circuit ! decision will prove to be important in future cases because it frees up prosecutors to seek a wiretap without requiring them to defer to an S.E.C. investigation. So now the Justice Department has the flexibility to choose to await the outcome of a civil investigation to see if it shows a crime, or opt to seek a powerful investigative tool like wiretaps if the agency believes it will help push forward the criminal investigation.

Wiretapped conversations are powerful evidence because they let a jury hear the defendant speak unfiltered. The Second Circuit’s decision gives a powerful imprimatur to how the government sought the wiretaps and their use in pursuing the insider trading cases tied to Mr. Rajaratnam.

When something works well, prosecutors have a tendency to copy it for other investigations. It would not be a surprise to see greater use of wiretaps in white-collar crime investigations in areas beyond just insider trading, with the Second Circuit’s decision serving as the touchstone fr what needs to be done to obtain the necessary judicial authorization.



The Bankers That Aren’t Too Big to Jail

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. set off a heated debate earlier this year when he suggested that some financial institutions may be too big to prosecute. But it's a different story when the banks are small. To illustrate the point, American Banker has a slideshow of bankers from small firms that have been brought to justice.

When Brevity Is the Soul of Wall Street Research

The gloom over Wall Street in recent days has prompted lots of commentary from analysts trying to make sense of the markets.

But for one analyst, a single word did the trick on Monday: “Sell.”

That was the content of a research note that Carter Braxton Worth, chief market technician at Oppenheimer, sent to clients Monday morning. No elaboration, no qualification. Just, sell.

“We have no new thoughts,” Mr. Worth’s note said.

Investors have been on edge since Wednesday, when Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, described how the central bank would reduce the stimulus it has pumped into the financial system. That set off a wave of selling in markets around the world, causing stocks, bonds and other investments to tumble in value.

The jitters continued on Monday, with the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index down 1.2 percent. United States government bond prices, however, pared some losses during the day.

The movements were stark. “The charts on the pages that follow speak for themselves,” Mr. Worth wrote in his research note.

As promised, the subsequent pages featured charts of stocks, commodities and other assets, meant to illustrate the bearish sentiment that has recently taken hold.

The research note stood out for its brevity. Typically, analysts spend paragraphs and even pages expounding on market and economic indicators for the benefit of their clients.

But the pithiness of Mr. Worth’s note moved one blogger, the investment adviser Joshua M. Brown, to declare it the “Greatest. Research Note. Ever.”

“At some point there is no point… in saying anything more,” Mr. Worth wrote.

C.B. Worth - "Money in Motion"



Owner of Hudson’s Bay Explores a Deal to Buy Saks

Will the owner of two of the oldest department store chains in North America be adding a third to his collection?

Richard A. Baker, a shopping mall developer who emerged as a major player in the department store business with his purchases of Lord & Taylor and Hudson’s Bay, is now exploring a bid for Saks, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Saks, a 90-year-old department store chain, hired Goldman Sachs last month to explore a possible sale. Its shares soared to a five-year high after news broke that the company was in play.

Among the potential buyers that have explored purchasing or making an investment in the company are the private equity giant Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company and the sovereign wealth fund Qatar Investment Authority, this person said. K.K.R. had also floated an audacious deal that would have merged Saks and Neiman Marcus, which is also on the block, but that outcome is highly unlikely.

On Monday, the private equity owners of Neiman Marcus â€" TPG, Warburg Pincus and Leonard Green â€" filed for an initial public offering. They have owned Neiman Marcus since 2005.

For Mr. Baker, chief executive of Hudson’s Bay, the parent of The Bay stores in Canada and Lord & Taylor in the United States, an acquisition of Saks would cap an extraordinary run of deal-making. In 2006, at the market peak, he acquired Lord & Taylor for $1.2 billion. He later! acquired Hudson’s Bay and combine the two into one company, which posted about $4.1 billion in revenue during its 2012 fiscal year.

Last November, Mr. Baker orchestrated an initial public offering of Hudson’s Bay, listing the company on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Adding Saks to his portfolio holds great appeal to Mr. Baker, 47, who lives in Greenwich, Conn., and is based in New York. In the United States, there are significant synergies between the Saks and Lord & Taylor, whose flagship stores are 11 blocks from one another on Fifth Avenue. And there is also growth potential in Canada for both Saks Fifth Avenue department stores and and its discount arm, Off 5th.

Should Mr. Baker make a bid for Saks, there would also, presumably, be a real estate angle. After acquiring Hudson’s, Mr. Baker struck a complex deal to sell the rights to leases on an under-performing division Hudson’s Bay to Target for about $1.8 billion. The deal enabled him to pay down a large amount of debt.

Mr. Baker’s interest in Saks was first reported on Monday by Women’s Wear Daily. Shares of Saks were flat at $13.49 in trading on the New York Stock Exchange.



Developer of Hudson’s Bay Explores a Deal to Buy Saks

Will the owner of two of the oldest department store chains in North America be adding a third to his collection?

Richard A. Baker, a shopping mall developer who emerged as a major player in the department store business with his purchases of Lord & Taylor and Hudson’s Bay, is now exploring a bid for Saks, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Saks, the 90-year-old department store chain, hired Goldman Sachs last month to explore a possible sale. Its shares soared to a five-year high after news broke that the company was in play.

Among the potential buyers that have explored purchasing or making an investment in the company are the private equity giant Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company and the sovereign wealth fund Qatar Investment Authority, this person said. K.K.R. had also floated an audacious deal that would have merged Saks and Neiman Marcus, which is also on the block, but that outcome is highly unlikely.

On Monday, the private equity owners of Neiman Marcus â€" TPG, Warburg Pincus and Leonard Green â€" filed for an initial public offering. They have owned Neiman Marcus since 2005.

For Mr. Baker, chief executive of Hudson’s Bay, the parent of The Bay stores in Canada and Lord & Taylor in the United States, an acquisition of Saks would cap an extraordinary run of deal-making. In 2006, at the market peak, he acquired Lord & Taylor for $1.2 billion. He late! r acquired Hudson’s Bay and combine the two into one company, which posted about $4.1 billion in revenue during its 2012 fiscal year.

Last November, Mr. Baker orchestrated an initial public offering of Hudson’s Bay, listing the company on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Adding Saks to his portfolio holds great appeal to Mr. Baker, 48, who lives in Greenwich, Conn., and is based in New York. In the United States, there are significant synergies between the Saks and Lord & Taylor, whose flagship stores are 11 blocks from one another on Fifth Avenue. And there is also growth potential in Canada for both Saks Fifth Avenue department stores and and its discount arm, Off 5th.

Should Mr. Baker make a bid for Saks, there would also, presumably, be a real estate angle. After acquiring Hudson’s, Mr. Baker struck a complex deal to sell the rights to leases on an underperforming division Hudson’s Bay to Target for about $1.8 billion. The deal enabled him to pay down a large amount of debt.

Mr. Baker’s interest in Saks was first reported on Monday by Women’s Wear Daily. Shares of Saks were flat at $13.49 in trading on the New York Stock Exchange.



Developer of Hudson’s Bay Explores a Deal to Buy Saks

Will the owner of two of the oldest department store chains in North America be adding a third to his collection?

Richard A. Baker, a shopping mall developer who emerged as a major player in the department store business with his purchases of Lord & Taylor and Hudson’s Bay, is now exploring a bid for Saks, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Saks, the 90-year-old department store chain, hired Goldman Sachs last month to explore a possible sale. Its shares soared to a five-year high after news broke that the company was in play.

Among the potential buyers that have explored purchasing or making an investment in the company are the private equity giant Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company and the sovereign wealth fund Qatar Investment Authority, this person said. K.K.R. had also floated an audacious deal that would have merged Saks and Neiman Marcus, which is also on the block, but that outcome is highly unlikely.

On Monday, the private equity owners of Neiman Marcus â€" TPG, Warburg Pincus and Leonard Green â€" filed for an initial public offering. They have owned Neiman Marcus since 2005.

For Mr. Baker, chief executive of Hudson’s Bay, the parent of The Bay stores in Canada and Lord & Taylor in the United States, an acquisition of Saks would cap an extraordinary run of deal-making. In 2006, at the market peak, he acquired Lord & Taylor for $1.2 billion. He late! r acquired Hudson’s Bay and combine the two into one company, which posted about $4.1 billion in revenue during its 2012 fiscal year.

Last November, Mr. Baker orchestrated an initial public offering of Hudson’s Bay, listing the company on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Adding Saks to his portfolio holds great appeal to Mr. Baker, 48, who lives in Greenwich, Conn., and is based in New York. In the United States, there are significant synergies between the Saks and Lord & Taylor, whose flagship stores are 11 blocks from one another on Fifth Avenue. And there is also growth potential in Canada for both Saks Fifth Avenue department stores and and its discount arm, Off 5th.

Should Mr. Baker make a bid for Saks, there would also, presumably, be a real estate angle. After acquiring Hudson’s, Mr. Baker struck a complex deal to sell the rights to leases on an underperforming division Hudson’s Bay to Target for about $1.8 billion. The deal enabled him to pay down a large amount of debt.

Mr. Baker’s interest in Saks was first reported on Monday by Women’s Wear Daily. Shares of Saks were flat at $13.49 in trading on the New York Stock Exchange.



Recent Ex-Senators Find Soft Landings on Corporate Boards

Departing senators are finding that the life of an ex-lawmaker can be lucrative. In recent months, several have found spots in corporate boardroom, even if they have no direct business experience in the industries wooing them.

Last week, Olympia Snowe, the former Republican senator from Maine, was named to the board of T. Rowe Price, the Baltimore investment management company that handles more than $600 billion. She joins two other senators whose terms ended in January in landing a boardroom seat.

Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican who briefly filled Ted Kennedy‘s seat, joined the board of Kadant, a paper- and recycling-equipment maker, on Feb. 6, just a month after his Senate term ended. (Mr. Brown was beaten at the polls by the progressive firebrand Elizabeth Warren.) He also did not remain unemployed for long, landing a position at the big law firm Nixon Peabody.

A little over a month later, on March 22, Kent Conrad, a fiscally conservative North Dakota Democrat, joined the board of Genworth Financial, a life insurance company spun off from General Electric in 2004. Mr. Conrad, Mr. Brown and Ms. Snowe are just three of the 14 senators who stepped down from the 112th Congress.

If history is any guide, other ex-colleagues willsoon follow. About a third of recent former senators appear to have landed on company boards, based on an analysis corporate filings.

During last three Congressional election cycles, 43 senators have retired, quit or lost an election, according to an online database from Roll Call, one of the news outlets that closely follow the comings and goings of Beltway figures.

Some ex-senators sign onto multiple company boards. Those have included Judd Gregg, a former New Hampshire Republican and former governor of that state who was briefly in the running to serve as commerce secretary under President Obama. He sits on the boards of IntercontinentalExchange and FairPoint Communications.

John E. Sununu, who represented New Hampshire for one term and is the son of President Reagan‘s chief of staff, sits on the boards of Time Warner Cable and the medical device maker Boston Scientific. Evan Bayh, a conservative Democrat and former governor from Indiana, serves on the boards of Marathon Petroleum and Fifth Third Bancorp.

Perhaps unsurprising, there can be overlap between a lawmaker’s Senate duties and board service. Mr. Bayh, for example, had served on both the Senate’s energy and banking committees. Others oversee companies influential in their home states. Blanche Lincoln, who sat on the Senate’s energy committee, now serves on the board of Entergy, a big utility that’s a major force in her home state of Arkansas.

Other ex-senators now in the boardroom include Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican known for helping to expand hate-crime laws to gays, helps oversee Host Hotels and Resorts; Chuck Hagel, now Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, served on Chevron‘sboard after leaving the Senate in 2009; and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat who opposed repealing Glass-Steagall serves on the board of Codexis.

Done right, serving on a corporate board can be challenging. But there’s no question the pay is good for what is, fundamentally, a part-time job.

T. Rowe Price’s board met seven times last year, for example, and acted by “unanimous consent” three other times. The executive compensation committee, which Ms. Snowe is joining, met six times.

In terms of pay, she will receive 4,200 restricted shares (worth about $302,484 at Friday’s close) and! stands t! o collect a cash retainer of $75,000 a year, plus $1,500 for each committee meeting she attends and up to $10,000 in charitable matching contributions. In 2012, T. Rowe Price board members averaged about $280,000 each in total compensation.



Making Misconduct a Crime

A persistent criticism since the financial crisis hit has been the lack of any significant prosecutions of senior executives at the financial firms that received billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed bailouts. In Britain, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards suggested adding a new law to allow the prosecution of British bank executives when they recklessly engage in misconduct that puts the bank and its customers at risk of severe losses.

It is an interesting question whether Congress should consider similar legislation to make it easier to hold financial executives criminally liable for decisions that can result in billions of dollars of losses, much of which may be borne by taxpayers as long as there are institutions considered “too big to fail.”

One reason given by the Justice Department for the absence of any significant prosecutions of cororate executives is the difficulty prosecutors face in proving an individual’s specific intent to commit a crime. Lanny A. Breuer, the former head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, offered that explanation in a PBS “Frontline” special entitled “The Untouchables” about the lack of financial crime prosecutions: “But when we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent, then we have a constitutional duty not to bring those cases.”

This is especially problematic when chief executives and other officers may be well removed from the actual decisions tha! t led to the losses. They can plausibly assert their ignorance about what actually happened. When authority is diffused through an organization, it can be almost impossible to hold anyone accountable.

The British proposal would obviate at least some of that difficulty by using a lower threshold to allow a conviction if the government proved that an executive recklessly engaged in misconduct. Under American law in general, recklessness is defined as consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm from conduct that is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do. A defense of “I didn’t know” can be more easily overcome if the person should have been aware of what was happening but charged headlong into risky transactions.

There is nothing comparable to the British proposal in the United States to prosecute this type of financial misconduct by executives. At one time, the federal mail and wire fraud statutes were used against corporate leaders who breached th duty of honest services that involved conflicts of interest and other actions that put their own interests ahead of those of an employer.

Among those prosecuted under this theory was Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former chief executive of Enron. The Supreme Court used his case to limit honest services fraud prosecutions to only instances of bribery and kickbacks, not more general corporate mismanagement that caused harm to the enterprise through dishonesty. Mr. Skilling’s sentence was reduced by 10 years last week in exchange for his dropping any further appeals in his case.

With the honest services fraud theory off the table, few options are available to pursue corporate executives for misconduct that does not require proving the higher level of intent bemoaned by the Justice Department.

Civil enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission can be brought for reckless violations, and some fraud violations require only proof of negligence. But even that lower threshold has proved to be a challenge in cases arising from the financial crisis.

For example, a jury found in favor of Bruce Bent Sr. for his statements about the stability of the Primary Reserve Fund, a money-market fund whose meltdown during the financial crisis unnerved investors, even though the S.E.C. had to prove only negligence. Similarly, a former Citigroup middle manager was cleared of securities fraud charges under the same standard for his role in selling a collateralized debt obligation tied to subprime mortgages that lost much of its value within months of its issuance. The S.E.C. has a trial scheduled next month against Fabrice Tourre, formerly of Goldman Sachs, for his role in peddling a faulty security that will present a significant challenge in whether it can prove he was reckless.

Adopting a statute along the lines of the parliamentary commission’s recommendation might have some modest deterrent effect on financial executives, who could fear that they might be made an example by prosecutors seeking to hold someone accountable for a bank’s failure. Whether that would make them overly timid in how they manage the bank’s operations by avoiding any risk of failure is one plausible response.

Requiring proof of recklessness would not necessarily mean that more executives would be prosecuted successfully for the type of deciions that led to the financial crisis. The recommendation for the new crime in Britain candidly admits that “all concerned should be under no illusions about the difficulties of securing a conviction for such a new offense.” The parliamentary commission also said that this new authority could be used only when there are substantial costs imposed on taxpayers or the threat of serious harm to customers, a fairly small class of cases.

In the end, the frustration expressed over the lack of any prominent criminal prosecutions of bankers that captured the public’s imagination like the case against Mr. Skilling may be less about the standard for proving a violation than finding proof to link executives to decisions that were clearly criminal. For all the talk about how the financial crisis must have entailed fraud, much of the conduct during that period seemed to involve a headlong rush into risky transactions without understanding the consequences. Whether that was misconduct or just stupidity ! is not an! easy question to answer.

The British proposal for a new crime of reckless mismanagement would give prosecutors another tool to use in the next financial crisis. A lower standard for proving intent might encourage the government to take on tough cases because it would be harder for financial executives to offer up their ignorance or good faith about the details of risky transactions as a shield against being held responsible.

But a new criminal offense would not have any effect on the financial crisis of a few years ago because the Constitution prevents applying a new law to old conduct.



Rajaratnam Conviction Upheld by Appeals Court

A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction of Raj Rajaratnam, the former hedge fund manager who was charged with orchestrating a vast insider trading conspiracy.

“Rajaratnam’s arguments are not persuasive,” said the the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan in a decision published on Monday.

Mr. Rajaratnam’s lawyers had argued that federal prosecutors had used deceptive methods to obtain permission from a judge to wiretap his cellphone. They accused the government government left out key information from its wiretap application, including that the was already conducting its own investigation.

The contents of those wiretapped conversations, on which Mr. Rajaratnam and his accomplices freely swapped confidential information about publicly traded companies, led a jury to find Mr. Rajaratnam guilty after a two-month trial in 2011. He is serving an 11-year sentence at a federal prison in Ayer, Massachusetts.

Judge Jose Cabranes, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, ruled that the trial-court judge, Richard J. Holwell, properly analyzed the alleged mistakes in the government’s application to wiretap Mr. Rajaratnam’s phone.

“We cannot conclude that the government omitted certain information about the S.E.C. investigation with ‘reckless disregard for the truth,’” wrote Judge Cabranes, who also rejected an argument by Mr. Rajarartnam’s lawyers that Judge Holwell gave the jury erroneous instructions.

Had th! e appeals court ruled in Mr. Rajaratnam’s favor, the government would have been forced to retry Mr. Rajaratnam without the 45 secretly recorded telephone calls that prosecutors played for the jury during the trial.

The decision does not substantially impact the appeal of Rajat K. Gupta, the former Goldman director convicted of leaking the bank’s boardroom secrets to Mr. Rajaratnam. While Mr. Gupta’s appeal, which was argued last month, also relates to the admissibility of Mr. Rajaratnam’s wiretapped conversations, it centers on different legal issues connected to evidentiary rulings by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, the trial court judge in that case.

Most of the legal players in the Rajaratnam trial have moved on. Judge Holwell left the bench and is now in private practice. All three prosecutors that tried him are now crimina defense lawyers: Reed Brodsky is at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher; Andrew Michaelson is at Boies Schiller & Flexner; and Jonathan Streeter is at Dechert.

And Patricia A. Millett of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the lawyer who argued Mr. Rajartnam’s appeal, was nominated earlier this month by President Obama to the federal appeals court in Washington.

Through a spokeswoman, Ms. Millett declined to comment on the ruling. Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, also declined to comment.



Cost Savings Make Vodafone Deal Palatable

Cost savings make Vodafone’s punchy bid for Kabel Deutschland palatable. The London-listed mobile giant has offered a hefty 10.7 billion euros ($14 billion), including debt, for Germany’s largest cable operator. Skeptics think Vodafone can be ponderous and profligate in mergers. But this looks acceptable - provided Vodafone can reap the promised financial benefits.

The 87-euros-a-share offer, which Kabel Deutschland’s boards plan to recommend, values the company’s equity at 7.7 billion euros. With debts of 3 billion euros, the enterprise value is 12.4 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or Ebitda, for the year ended March 2013, or 11 times current year figures.

These are huge multiples. Between floating in 2010 and the point when Vodafone’s interest emerged last February, Kabel Deutschland tradedat an average 7.7 times forward Ebitda. Liberty Global, the international cable group, paid 8 times forward Ebitda â€" or roughly $24 billion â€" for Virgin Media earlier in the year.

Still, the acquisition makes clear strategic sense for Vodafone. It wanted to defend its biggest European market; adapt to a world in which cable, broadband and mobile are increasingly sold together; and stop Kabel being snapped up by Liberty. (Having made one counter-proposal already, Liberty could yet return, but the odds are stacked against it.)

But Vodafone will save heaps by putting the two networks together, paying less in wholesale fees to Deutsche Telekom, and buying in bigger scale. In total, cost cuts and curbs to capital expenditure could be worth 3 billion euros in net present value terms, or nearly 34 euros a share. This is above some analyst! s’ estimates - and far outstrips the 2.05 billion euro premium Vodafone is paying to Kabel Deutschland’s undisturbed share price. That said, extra sales could add another 1.5 billion euros in net present value, though investors are understandably less excited by such “revenue synergy” promises.

Critics think Vodafone is lumbering and, remembering mega-deals in Germany and India, liable to overpay. This deal may entrench such prejudices. Compared with Liberty’s purchase of Virgin Media, which was quick, quiet and reasonably priced, this has been slow, expensive and extensively trailed. And a more far-sighted Vodafone could have pounced cheaply in 2010.

Still, the deal-making under its current chief executive, Vittorio Colao, has generally looked smart. If the Kabel Deutschland promises materialize, he should preserve that reputation.

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



Neiman Marcus Files to Go Public

Neiman Marcus is known for selling big-ticket items, including designer brands like Gucci and Chanel and aquatic jetpacks worth nearly $100,000.

Now, the upscale department store is planning another big sale: shares in itself.

Neiman Marcus filed to go public on Monday, more than eight years after agreeing to go private in a sale to the investment firms TPG Capital and Warburg Pincus.

The company’s initial prospectus was light on details, including how many shares the retailer intends to sell, at what price and on what stock exchange it will list. But it disclosed that it earned $140.1 million last year on top of $4.3 billion in revenue, its best fiscal year since before the financial crisis of 2008.

Neiman Marcus added that it earned $160.8 million in profit in the 39 weeks that ended April 27, up 6 perent from the same time last year.

The initial public offering filing followed an approach by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, which had proposed merging Neiman Marcus with a rival, Saks Inc., which is weighing a potential sale. But Neiman Marcus’s owners rebuffed the idea, a person briefed on the matter had previously said.

The offering is being run by Credit Suisse.



Big Law Firm to Cut Lawyers and Some Partner Pay

One of the country’s most prestigious and profitable law firms is laying off a large number of lawyers and support staff, as well as reducing the pay of some of its partners, a surprising move that underscores the financial difficulties facing the legal profession.

The leadership of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, a New York-based firm of 1,200 lawyers that counts General Electric and Sanofi as marquee clients and handled the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, informed its employees Monday morning about the reductions.

Sixty junior lawyers, known in law firms as associates, will lose their jobs. That amounts to roughly 7 percent of Weil’s associates. Roughly 0 of the firm’s 300 partners are having their annual compensation reduced, in many cases by hundreds of thousands of dollars. And 110 staff employees - roughly half of them legal secretaries - are being let go.

Although publicly traded companies, including Wall Street banks, often cull their ranks during fallow periods, it is rare for large law firms, especially elite ones like Weil, to fire employees en masse.

“While we have been able to avoid these actions in the past, and it is very painful from a human perspective, the management committee believes that these actions are essential now to enable our firm to continue to excel and retain its historic profitability in the new normal,” Barry M. Wolf, Weil’s executive chairman, wrote in an e-mail to its employees.

The “new normal,” in the view of Weil’s management and echoed by legal-industry experts, is that the market for high-end legal services continues to shrink. In the years leading up to the financial crisis, prof! itability exploded and the number of lawyers expanded at the country’s top firms as demand increased about 4 percent a year. But demand has been flat to down for the past five years, according to several industry reports, and shows little sign of picking up.

Dan DiPietro, chairman of the law-firm group at Citi Private Bank, said that there were too many lawyers at the country’s largest firms, estimating the excess capacity at as much as 10 percent of the lawyer population. He believes that the profession could possibly experience a wave of job cuts.

“My guess is that a good number of firms have been thinking about right-sizing and waiting for someone to provide them cover and we’ll see more of these moves,” Mr. DiPietro said. “As difficult as layoffs are, it seems that they will be necessary for some firms to get in synch with the current market dynamics.”

The market dynamics at Weil, whose partners make, on average, about $2.2 million a year, are rather unique. During the deths of the financial crisis, the firm avoided the layoffs that some other firms were forced to make. That was largely because of its pre-eminent bankruptcy practice, which advised both General Motors and Lehman Brothers on their Chapter 11 filings. Those assignments, particularly Lehman, generated hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, not only in bankruptcy work, but also from the ream of litigation that flowed from them.

In an interview last week, Weil’s chairman, Mr. Wolf, said that the firm thought that as the crisis-related work wound down and the economy recovered, it would see a pickup in its “transactional business,” the lucrative practice of advising corporations and priva! te equity! firms on acquisitions, as well as performing legal work for stock and bond offerings. But transactional activity at Weil remains soft and has not returned to anywhere near pre-2008 levels.

Nevertheless, the firm has performed well relative to its peers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. In 2012, Weil was ranked No. 1 in private equity representations globally, advising on more than $67 billion worth of transactions. And it ranked No. 2 in domestic M.&A. with more than $165 billion in total deals; this year, it has maintained that position, advising on such deals as American Airlines $11 billion merger with US Airways and Kinder Morgan’s $5 billion acquisition of Copano Energy. Still, Mr. Wolf said, there is not enough work to keep Weil’s army of lawyers sufficiently busy.

“Our market share has been improving, but the market has been shrinking,” Mr. Wolf said.

Mr. Wolf, a corporate lawyer who joined Weil in 1984 straight out of law school, said that while the decision to cut associates and staff was personally distressing for him and the management committee, there was little debate that it was the right one.

“We believe that this not just a cycle but that the supply-demand balance is out of whack across the industry,” he said. “If we thought this was a cycle and our business was going to pick! up meani! ngfully next year, we would not be doing this.”

Monday is expected to be a grim day at Weil, with partners informing associates of their dismissals in one-on-one meetings. Each will get six months severance. The firm’s leadership has already informed partners of their pay reductions. (There are no partner cuts because under the firm’s partnership agreement, partners can only be fired for cause.)

The mass layoffs are the first in the 82-year history of Weil, which has 21 offices across the globe and headquarters high above Fifth Avenue in the General Motors building, one of New York’s most coveted business addresses. Last year the firm posted revenues of about $1.2 billion, and its profits per partner ranked 13th of all firms nationwide.

In the e-mail sent Monday morning, Weil said that it was taking this action “from a position of strength.” It said that it had zero debt and a fully financed pension plan with more than $500 million in assets. It also noted that its partners do ot have any long-term compensation guarantees.

By listing those attributes, Weil appeared to be preemptively addressing comparisons to Dewey & LeBoeuf, a similarly sized law firm that dissolved last year. Dewey collapsed after disappointing profits and a heavy debt load forced it to slash partners’ salaries. Many Dewey partners had multiyear, multimillion-dollar contracts, and when they did not get paid their guarantee, they fled, crippling the firm.

A year after its demise, most industry specialists say that Dewey was an outlier, a victim of gross financial mismanagement. Still, some of Dewey’s problems were the result of trends facing successful firms like Weil.

Among the main factors hurting law firm profitability is that corporate clients have become stingy. Until recently, pricing pressure hardly existed for premium legal services. Decades ago, clients would receive a bill with only a lump sum and the statement “for professional services rendered.”

But today, big ! corporati! ons, facing business pressures of their own, have clamped down on legal expenses. They have beefed up their own in-house legal staffs and perform a lot of the work themselves. They are demanding that for routine assignments like document discovery, firms use outsourcing firms and contract lawyers rather than more expensive associates. And they routinely ask for discounts or capped fees at places like Weil, which charge more than $1,000 an hour for some partners’ work.

Steven J. Harper, a retired partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis and author of “The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis” (Basic Books, 2013), said that Weil’s move highlights the inexorable long-term industry trend: big law firm partnerships are now nothing more than bottom-line, profit-maximizing businesses.

Profits per partner - a statistic highlighted annually in the closely watched American Lawyer magazine rankings - have become an unhealthy obsession, Mr. Harper says. Driving this fixation is the frenzied lateralhiring market, where firms are poaching lawyers with large, established books of business from their rivals. Firms fear that if their profitability wanes, they will lose their stars.

“The culture at most of these large law firms is that you must maintain astronomical levels of partner earnings in order to keep your top talent,” Mr. Harper said. “Cutting staff is one way is one way to do that.”

Mr. Wolf, the executive chairman of Weil, said that while the layoffs would ultimately help the firm’s profits, the move was not about reducing expenses to pad partners’ bank accounts.

“This is not about cost cutting but about the future of the firm and strategically positioning us for the next five years,” Mr. Wolf said.

Several industry experts informed of Weil’s decision applauded the move. Peter Zeughauser, a law firm consultant, said that many firms are in denial about the continued slack demand for their services, and Weil’s cutbacks could pressure them into ge! tting lea! ner.

“We have been telling our clients about these economic realities for some time now,” Mr. Zeughauser said. “Weil is a bellwether firm, and this will be a real wake-up call.”

Weil Gotschal memo



Dell Special Committee Criticizes Icahn Proposal, Again

A special committee of Dell Inc.‘s board again criticized a stock repurchase proposal by Carl C. Icahn on Monday, arguing that his plan suffered from a financing shortfall that made it less valuable than the company’s planned $24.4 billion sale to Michael S. Dell.

In a presentation for investors, the Dell committee used math once again to contend that the plan by Mr. Icahn would be worth less to shareholders than he has promised. Starting with the $15.6 billion in cash that Mr. Icahn has calculated would be available for his proposal â€" in which Dell would buy 1.1 billion shares for $14 each â€" the committee then subtracted expected near-term debt maturities and minimum cash needs.

Ultimately, Dell would have only $12.7 billion available. That would mean that the company could offer only $8.15 in cash if all shareholders aside from Mr. Icahn and his ally, Southeastern Asset Management, tender their shares. (Mr. Icahn and Southeastern together own an almost 13 percent stake.)

And that still assumes that Mr. Icahn can line up the requisite financing. So far, he has said that a “major investment bank” would provide $1.6 billion and that he would be willing to invest $2 billion.

The special committee also took a few other swings at Mr. Icahn, arguing that his plans ! lacked credibility. Mr. Icahn hasn’t provided evidence that he has fully committed financing as well as other information that the directors have requested.

Repeating an earlier argument, the Dell committee also highlighted the risks of leaving part of the company publicly traded as so-called “stub” equity. Clear Channel, the radio giant, left a part of itself on the public markets, and its shares have fallen significantly since its leveraged buyout.

The report on Monday follows a similar presentation by Mr. Dell and his partner, the investment firm Silver Lake. It is meant not only for investors. Representatives of the committee are scheduled to make their case to Institutional Shareholder Services, the biggest proxy adviser, on Monday.

I.S.S. generally prefers to consider materials that are publicly disclosed. So with Mr. Icahn and Southeastern also scheduled to present before the advisory firm on Monday, perhaps the investors will respond with their own voluminous PowerPoint presetation.



Founders of ENRC Offer $4.7 Billion in Takeover Bid

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Vodafone to Buy Kabel Deutschland for $10.1 Billion

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Suntory Beverage Unit Prices Tokyo I.P.O. at $4 Billion

7:06 a.m. | Updated

TOKYOâ€"The food and drink unit of the Japanese brewing company Suntory Holdings set a modest share price for its much-anticipated initial public offering, reflecting weaker demand from investors amid volatile markets in Tokyo.

Suntory Beverage and Food is set to raise as much as 388 billion yen, or $3.96 billion, from the sale of as many as 125 million shares, according to a filing made Monday with the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The drink maker priced its shares at 3,100 yen each, near the bottom of the range of 3,000 yen to 3,800 yen it had announced June 17.

When the offering was announced late last month, the company appeared to have planned it at an opportune time, as shares in Tokyo had been soaring on strong expectations for the new economic policies of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. But after peaking in mid- May, Japan's benchmark Nikkei index has slumped 16 percent amid skepticis m among investors over some aspects of Mr. Abe's growth plans, as well as concerns over economic growth overseas.

The deal still ranks as Japan's, and Asia's, biggest I.P.O. in 2013. It is also the second-largest global offering so far this year, behind BB Seguridade Participacoes's $5 billion I.P.O., priced in April, according to financial data and services provider Dealogic.

Suntory, which sells a range of soft drinks in Japan including Pepsi, Orangina and the Boss canned coffee line, has been expanding overseas to make up for a saturated market back home. Kirin and Asahi, Suntory's rivals in Japan, are also looking to expand overseas through acquisitions.

In 2009, Suntory bought the European beverage maker Orangina Schweppes for 2.6 billion euros, or $3.4 billion at current exchange rates, and followed up with the acquisition of Funcor Group, one of New Zealand's largest beverage makers. Its initial public offering will raise funds to fuel further overse as purchases.

Suntory's share sale is Asia's biggest since Japan Airlines, the country's flagship carrier, pulled off a 663 billion-yen offering in September.

The deal calls for the beverage unit to issue 93 million new shares, while the parent company, Suntory Holdings, will sell 26 million existing shares plus an overallotment of 6.2 million shares, according to the filing.

The offering is set to be split almost evenly between domestic and foreign investors. The lead global underwriters on the deal are JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Nomura Holdings. The lead banks on the domestic portion of the offering are Nomura and Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities.

After the listing, scheduled for July 3, Suntory Holdings will own 61.5 percent of the beverage unit.

Suntory is a century-old brewer based in Osaka and known for producing Japan's first whiskey. One of Japan's largest privately held companies, its sprawling operations span brewing, soft drink manufacturing and the growing and selling of flowers.

A Suntory whiskey pitched by the actor Bill Murray in the 2003 film ‘‘Lost in Translation,'' catapulted Suntory to global fame. Japan's top-selling whiskey is Suntory's Kakubin, known for its square-cut, tortoise-shell- like bottle.



Tenet to Acquire Vanguard Health Systems for $1.8 Billion

Tenet Healthcare said on Monday that it had agreed to acquire Vanguard Health Systems for roughly $1.8 billion in a deal that will put Tenet into new markets.

Tenet's offer of $21 in cash for every Vanguard share represents a premium of 70 percent over Vanguard's closing stock price on Friday. Tenet will also assume $2.5 billion in Vanguard debt.

A big winner in the deal is the Blackstone Group, which owns 37.9 percent of Vanguard as of the end of March. The biggest shareholder of Tenet is the hedge fund manager Larry Robbins' Glenview Capital, which owns a 9.51 percent stake, after selling some four million shares as May 14. In that same regulatory filing, Glenview said that it had increased its holdings of another for-profit hospital system, Health Management Associates, to 14.6 percent. H.M.A. has been the subject of takeover speculation.

Consolidation in the for-profit hospital business is being driven by a desire to find cost savings and also by the Obama administration's health care overhaul, which will reduce the number of uninsured Americans and increase the number of paying patients.

Based in Nashville, Vanguard owns and operates 28 acute care hospitals with 7,081 licensed beds in San Antonio, Harlingen and Brownsville in Texas; metropolitan Detroit; metropolitan Phoenix; metropolitan Chicago; and in Massachusetts. The company also owns managed health plans in Chicago; Detroit; Harlingen, Tex.; and Phoenix, and it has two surgery centers in Orange County in California.

Tenet, based in Dallas, has 49 hospitals with a total of 13,180 licensed beds and 122 outpatient centers. It also owns Conifer Health Solutions.

“This unique strategic transaction will bring together organizations that share a common commitment to providing high quality care and create significant new growth prospects for Tenet,” Trevor Fetter, Tenet's chief executive said in a statement. “This acquisition will take Tenet into new geographic markets, expand the breadth of our service offerings, diversify our earnings sources and increase the benefits we expect to realize under healthcare reform. This acquisition will also include a substantial contribution from the application of Conifer's capabilities to Vanguard's operations. We expect additional financial contributions to come from supply costs savings and labor management efficiencies.”

Tenet has secured financing for the deal from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Lazard was lead financial and strategic adviser to Tenet. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher served as Tenet's legal counsel. Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Barclays and Teneo Capital also served as advisers for Tenet.

JPMorgan Chase and the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom advised Vanguard.