Make smart financial decisions with DailyFinance
New York Times posts

Feed

New York Times to meet with dissidents -- but who cares?

The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) committee that vets candidates for the company's board has agreed to meet with dissident shareholders seeking board seats from Harbinger Capital Partners and Firebrand Partners.

According (subscription required) to the Wall Street Journal, "The meeting could be a first step toward a decision to recommend a vote for some of the group's nominees. Such a decision could avert a threatened proxy fight by the shareholders, Harbinger Capital Partners and Firebrand Partners, which Monday disclosed they had raised their stake in the publishing company to 19%."

I have to say, this "looming proxy fight" is one of the biggest non-stories in activist investing in recent memory. The Sulzberger family controls the company's fate through a dual-class share structure. Even if Harbinger and Firebrand do gain control of four seats on the 14-member board -- the most they can because the family controls the other nine seats -- they'll be a minority with no leverage. After they get four seats, that's it. Nowhere else to go.

Their meetings with the company's board, and any conversations they have with the company if they do get seats on the board, are the equivalent of two guys sitting in a bar, talking business over a beer. Maybe the Sulzberger's will listen, maybe they won't. But having seats on the board won't get them anywhere.

Will activist campaign at New York Times Co. work?

Firebrand Partners chief investment officer Scott Galloway writes 13-D letters that are straight out of Oprah: after acquiring a stake in Gateway, he wrote that "There is nothing wrong with Gateway that can't be fixed with what's right with Gateway." That investment ended in victory when Acer acquired the company.

Now Galloway is making headlines with his investment in the New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT), and is sending similarly cuddly letters to top brass and attaching them to 13-Ds: "The New York Times is a great institution controlled by the Sulzberger family, and we have no illusion about, or desire to change, that fact."

For entertainment value, the Jerry Springer of activist investors, Dan Loeb, is much better. But according (subscription required) to the Wall Street Journal, Galloway's approach may work well: "Instead of being hostile, he offers what appears to be constructive criticism."

At the New York Times, though, I don't think it will work. Galloway has no leverage. A carrot and stick approach can work nicely -- "We're here to help but we'll get more hostile if necessary." But at the Times, Galloway is fighting for minority representation on an entrenched board.

If he gets on, he won't be able to do much unless the controlling family decides it wants to make the changes he's suggesting -- and if they do, there's no need for him to be on the board!

And if they don't listen to him? Nothing.

The M&A Beat: January 30, 2008

Maybe the U.S. is heading into a slowdown, and maybe private equity and traditional M&A has been slowing down in recent months. But there are many deals still pending, and regardless of the economy the temptation for consolidation and acquisitions is just going to be too great for nothing new to occur in this space. Below are some snippets from many deals going on in recent IPO's, M&A, private equity, and more.

Continue reading The M&A Beat: January 30, 2008

Rupert Murdoch says he eyed New York Times

Mysterious is the mind of media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Now comes word that the News Corp (NYSE: NWS) CEO considered making a bid for The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT). Exactly how long the mogul entertained such a notion isn't clear. Of course, he eventually went after Wall Street Journal parent Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ).

Can you imagine a New York Times owned by Murdoch? Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, and Maureen Dowd probably couldn't either. I am sure the four of them would have screamed bloody murder at the thought of working for Murdoch. New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger, whose family has a iron-clad grip on the publisher, would never sell. But Murdoch, who sees The Times as a symbol of all that's bad and liberal about the media, knows all of these and many other reasons why he will never own the Grey Lady. So, why would he waste his time with such a ludicrous idea? I have no idea but dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/did-murdoch-mull-a-times-offer/, The Times' business blog, has a novel theory.

"it's possible that the crafty media baron is playing games with the paper he wishes to destroy." the site says.

You think?

Investors battle New York Times over share structure

The shareholder meeting for the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) could be exciting as a group of investors led by Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS)push for the company to abandon its dual-class stock structure. Institutional Shareholders Services is recommending that investors withhold support from the company board of directors, although such a vote will have little in the way of practical consequences. The Ochs-Sulzberger family controls most of the company's voting stock.

A change in the company's voting structure would allow shareholders to have some say in the company's management. Washington Post Company's(NYSE:WPS)Chairman Donald Graham believes that a change in the share structure at the New York Times would make the company a takeover target, and that a new owner might not spend as much on newsroom budget.

He's probably right. But here's the problem: As a public company, the New York Times has a responsibility to generate value for its shareholders. If the Ochs-Sulzberger family wants to run the company in a manner that does not benefit minority shareholders, they should do the right thing -- take the company private.

But as long as the New York Times is a public company, the board has a fiduciary responsibility to take steps to boost shareholder value. The 5-year chart demonstrates their failure on that front:

BloggingBuyouts is provided for informational purposes only. Nothing on the service is intended to provide personally tailored advice concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, portfolio or securities, transaction, investment strategy or other matter. You are solely responsible for any investment decisions that you make. The contributors who provide the content of BloggingBuyouts may, from time to time, hold positions in the securities discussed at the time of writing and they may trade for their own accounts. Such holdings will be disclosed at the time of writing. By using the site, you agree to abide to BloggingBuyouts' Terms of Use.

Terms of Use

Deals
Alliance Boots, bidding war, 2007 (2)
Bausch and Lomb, $3.7b, 2007 (1)
Blackstone, IPO, 2007 (44)
Chrysler, $7.5b, 2007 (28)
DoubleClick, $3.1b, Apr 2007 (2)
Express Stores, $548m, 2007 (2)
Harman Int'l, 2007 (7)
Laureate, $3.1b, 2007 (1)
Palm Inc, 2007 (1)
Sallie Mae, $25b, 2007 (16)
Travelport, $4.3b, Aug 2006 (1)
TXU Inc., 2007 (16)
Features
Activist investing (127)
Top deals (61)
Firms
Apax Partners (9)
Apollo Management (47)
Bain Capital (67)
Cerberus Capital (53)
Citigroup (11)
Clayton, Dubilier and Rice Inc. (8)
Golden Gate Partners (4)
GS Capital Partners (29)
J.C. Flowers (19)
KKR (119)
Madison Dearborn Partners (23)
Merrill Lynch (5)
Morgan Stanley Capital Partners (5)
Permira (6)
Providence Equity Partners (16)
Silver Lake Partners (21)
Texas Pacific Group (69)
The Blackstone Group (174)
The Carlyle Group (76)
Thoma Cressey Equity Partners (0)
Thomas H. Lee Partners (27)
Warburg Pincus (10)
Welsh, Carson, Anderson and Stowe (3)
News
Deals (663)
Engagements (104)
Financials and analyticals (80)
Investments (234)
Management (121)
Management fees (19)
Movers and shakers (67)
Private equity (29)
Private equity industry (341)
Public or private? (209)
Raising money (144)
Rumors (191)
Shareholders (98)
Taxes and regulations (45)
Value and lack thereof (124)
Venture capital industry (54)

RSS NEWSFEEDS

Powered by Blogsmith

Sponsored Links