Friday, May 31, 2013

Reuters: Regulatory News: UPDATE 1-UBS France put under formal investigation -judicial source

Reuters: Regulatory News
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
UPDATE 1-UBS France put under formal investigation -judicial source
May 31st 2013, 23:52

Fri May 31, 2013 7:52pm EDT

PARIS, June 1 (Reuters) - Swiss bank UBS's French unit was put under formal investigation on Friday in Paris for alleged complicity in suspected illegal business practices in France, a judicial source said.

UBS France is being investigated by the French judiciary on whether it offered potential French clients investments that were allegedly designed to evade taxes.

Three UBS France executives already have been put under investigation, which means under French law there is serious or consistent evidence pointing to implication of a suspect in a crime.

The judicial source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said an administrator has been designated to look into the bank's business practices and how bonuses are given out.

UBS France CEO Jean-Frederic de Leusse was recently questioned by judges who had to decide whether to formally place the bank under investigation.

Cash-strapped governments around the world are cracking down on tax evasion and money laundering in the wake of the financial crisis.

The issue took on particular importance in France after former budget minister Jerome Cahuzac quit over allegations that he had an undeclared Swiss bank account, which he later acknowledged.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Regulatory News: Barrick pays $11.6 mln fine for environmental harm in Chile

Reuters: Regulatory News
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Barrick pays $11.6 mln fine for environmental harm in Chile
May 31st 2013, 21:58

SANTIAGO | Fri May 31, 2013 5:58pm EDT

SANTIAGO May 31 (Reuters) - Barrick Gold Corp has paid a discounted $11.6 million fine for serious environmental violations at its suspended Pascua-Lama gold project, a spokesperson for the company said on Friday.

Last Friday, Chile's new environmental regulator ordered the controversial $8.5 billion project be halted and fined the world's biggest gold miner around $16 million.

Chilean law provides a 25 percent discount if the fine is paid within five working days.

The project will likely be reactivated in one to two years at the earliest, given the infrastructure that needs to be built to avoid water pollution, the regulator told Reuters on Thursday.

A Chilean court in April had already temporarily halted the unpopular project, which straddles the border of Chile and Argentina, to weigh claims by indigenous communities that Barrick has damaged pristine glaciers and harmed water supplies.

The fine imposed by the regulator stems from one "very serious breach" and four "serious breaches." Given the infractions, Greenpeace said the fine was "laughable."

Barrick shares closed down 13 cents at $21.58 on Friday in Toronto.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Regulatory News: UPDATE 2-U.S. Medicare outlook improves as healthcare costs ease

Reuters: Regulatory News
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
UPDATE 2-U.S. Medicare outlook improves as healthcare costs ease
May 31st 2013, 18:56

Fri May 31, 2013 2:56pm EDT

* Improved outlook could make Congress complacent

* Social Security budget outlook largely unchanged

* Disability insurance changes needed by 2016 -report

By David Lawder and Margaret Chadbourn

WASHINGTON, May 31 (Reuters) - Slower growth in U.S. healthcare costs improved the budget outlook for the Medicare program for the elderly from last year, but the fortunes of the Social Security pension program have not changed despite a better economy, trustees of the programs said on Friday.

The trustees repeated warnings to Congress to pass reforms that will enable the programs to meet all of their long-term obligations, but their report adds to recent evidence of an easing in U.S. budget pressures, and could help encourage a sense of complacency in Washington.

The main trust fund that supports the Medicare healthcare program will be depleted in 2026, two years later than forecast last year, the trustees said in their annual status report.

The trustees attributed the improvement to lower projected spending for most treatment categories, especially in skilled nursing homes, an assumption in keeping with recent signs of slower healthcare inflation.

They also said the implementation of key parts of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law next year will reduce costs by more than previously projected.

The report said the Social Security fund for retirees will be depleted in 2033, the same as forecast last year. But a much more pressing need is the 2016 depletion date for the Social Security's trust fund that pays benefits to people with disabilities.

While this is also unchanged from last year's report, it means that Congress now only has three years to agree on new funding or reforms that would avoid reduced payments to beneficiaries.

Depletion of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds does not mean that all benefits would stop. At the current rate of payroll tax collections, Medicare would be able to pay about 87 percent of costs after 2026, declining to 71 percent by 2047. Social Security would be able to pay about three quarters of its benefits through 2087, according to the report.

REFORM ENTHUSIASM DIMS

The programs represent the two largest federal expenditures and account for about one-third of all U.S. fiscal outlays. The reports will feed into bitter arguments between Democrats and Republicans over how to reform the programs to keep them solvent and able to support the needs of the massive Baby Boom generation that is now starting to retire.

The healthcare improvements cited by the trustees in the report could dampen enthusiasm, particularly among Democrats, for any reforms to entitlement programs. The report comes on the heels of other signs showing a quick, if only temporary, reduction in the U.S. budget deficit.

"It reinforces a consensus in this city that the crisis isn't imminent," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Croup, a firm that advises investors on Washington politics. "A mood of complacency is intensifying over entitlement reform. There's no sense of urgency."

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the report supports Democrats' approach of protecting the basic structure of Social Security and Medicare, while reducing healthcare costs and excessive drug subsidies and asking wealthier seniors to contribute more.

While the Obama administration wants to work on bipartisan reforms to strengthen the programs' financial footing, Lew said "changes to Social Security and that involve deep cuts in benefits or privatization will be unacceptable."

Senator Bernard Sanders, a liberal Independent from Vermont, said the report shows that Social Security "is not going broke" and argued against Obama's proposal to limit future cost-of-living increases by applying a less-generous measure of inflation.

Sanders in a statement said the report showed the wealthy should pay more into the pension program. "We must lift the cap on Social Security payroll taxes and make the wealthy contribute the same percentage of their income as other workers," he said. "Today, someone making $10 million a year contributes the same amount of money as someone making $113,700. That is absurd."

Republicans in the House of Representatives, meanwhile, have proposed massive long-term changes to Medicare that would effectively convert the popular fee-for-service program into a voucher-like system that provides a subsidy to seniors to buy private health insurance.

"Today's report is yet another reminder that Medicare and Social Security are in great danger," said a spokesman for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the leading Republican fiscal voice. "We need to protect and strengthen these critical programs."

Republicans also want to repeal Obama's healthcare reforms. But the report said the "modest improvement" in the Medicare finance outlook came from lower projected spending for most service categories "that reflect recent data suggesting that certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act will reduce growth in these costs by more than previously projected."

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Regulatory News: Monsanto backing away from GMO crops in Europe

Reuters: Regulatory News
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Monsanto backing away from GMO crops in Europe
May 31st 2013, 17:16

Fri May 31, 2013 1:16pm EDT

May 31 (Reuters) - Monsanto Co is not pushing for expansion of genetically modified crops in most of Europe as opposition to its biotech seeds in many countries remains high, company officials said on Friday.

European officials for the St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto told the German daily "Taz" that they were no longer doing any lobby work for cultivation in Europe and not seeking any new approvals for genetically modified plants.

"We've come to the conclusion that this has no broad acceptance at the moment," Monsanto Germany spokeswoman, Ursula Lüttmer-Ouazane, told Taz.

Monsanto corporate spokesman Thomas Helscher said on Friday that the company is making it clear that it will only pursue market penetration of biotech crops in areas that provide broad support.

"We're going to sell the GM seeds only where they enjoy broad farmer support, broad political support and a functioning regulatory system," Helscher told Reuters. "As far as we're convinced this only applies to a few countries in Europe today, primarily Spain and Portugal."

The company has been focusing lately on gaining market share in the conventional corn market in Ukraine, and Monsanto Vice President Jesus Madrazo, who oversees international corporate affairs, said Eastern Europe and South America are key growth areas for the company now.

Unlike Europe, South America has largely been welcoming of Monsanto's crop biotechnology, but the company is also facing hurdles there as it is awaiting approvals by China, which is a large buyer of soybeans from Brazil.

Monsanto's wants to launch its new bioengineered, worm-resistant soybean seed called Intacta RR2 Pro for planting in Brazil next season, but a successful launch depends on approval from China, according to Monsanto officials.

Monsanto is under fire this week after an experimental biotech wheat that the company said it shelved several years ago was found growing in an Oregon farm field. The discovery, announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday, has roiled exports markets for U.S. wheat as Asian buyers have backed away from U.S. wheat purchases.

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Regulatory News: UPDATE 1-China Inc's Smithfield bid expected to pass Washington test

Reuters: Regulatory News
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
UPDATE 1-China Inc's Smithfield bid expected to pass Washington test
May 31st 2013, 18:23

Fri May 31, 2013 2:23pm EDT

By Michael Erman, Olivia Oran and Greg Roumeliotis

May 31 (Reuters) - Washington may still be digesting news of China Inc's latest bold move into America with the nearly $5 billion takeover of Smithfield Foods Inc, but early indications are the deal will not inflame enough nationalistic opposition to kill it, and success could pave the way for more Chinese purchases.

Shuanghui International Holdings' agreement to buy Smithfield would be the largest ever acquisition of a U.S. company by a Chinese one. The bid - an effort to feed a growing Chinese appetite for U.S. pork - has stirred some concern among U.S. politicians and will face review by a Treasury committee.

To many dealmakers and executives, that review is procedural and should not set off alarms.

"I don't think the Smithfield deal will have problems," said David Marchick, who leads private equity firm Carlyle Group LP's government, public and regulatory affairs and was not involved in the deal. "It's not a sensitive sector. They are keeping American management. And the U.S. agricultural community would love to export more to China."

Carlyle, which has done several deals involving China, did not encounter any problems last year when it sold one of its portfolio companies, U.S. movie theater operator AMC Entertainment, to Chinese conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group, Marchick said. The $2.6 billion deal was the fifth largest M&A transaction by a Chinese company in the United States, according to Thomson Reuters data.

"Most Chinese acquisitions in the U.S. will not encounter regulatory or political challenges. Three or four deals a year do encounter problems - and garner all the attention," said Marchick, who has co-authored a book on U.S. national security and foreign direct investment.

The Smithfield deal could certainly still face opposition on Capitol Hill. Congress is out of session right now, and foreign policy hawks such as Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Senator John McCain of Arizona have yet to weigh in. Last week both Senators expressed concerns about the takeover of Sprint Nextel Corp by Japan's SoftBank Corp, due mainly to security concerns related to telecom equipment from China.

Chinese companies have become more comfortable looking to do deals in the United States, in spite of the 2005 rejection of China National Offshore Oil Corp's $18.5 billion attempt to buy U.S. energy company Unocal. CNOOC's bid was thwarted by fierce political opposition because of national security concerns.

With over $10.5 billion of deals by Chinese companies in the United States so far, 2013 is on pace to be the largest year ever for inbound M&A by Chinese companies, according to Thomson Reuters data. There were $11.5 billion worth of deals by Chinese companies in the United States in 2012, which was itself a significantly higher figure than in any year other than 2007.

"I do think it's helpful to get a large transaction with a Chinese buyer through," said Adel Aslani-Far, global co-chair of the M&A practice at Latham & Watkins. "It's a shot in the arm to the deal economy and to attitudes about Chinese deals. Something sizable like this could be a very good sign to the market that the conditions are right here and will encourage further Chinese investment into the U.S."

Smithfield shares were trading at around $32.94 on Friday, 3.1 percent below the $34 a share offered by Shuanghui.

NATIONAL SECURITY QUESTIONS

Shuanghui's acquisition of Virginia-based Smithfield Foods will face scrutiny by the Treasury's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS. Congress has no authority to block the deal but can exert political pressure.

The Smithfield deal has generated limited response from Congress so far with only a handful of lawmakers - notably Charles Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa, the largest U.S. hog producing state - expressing doubts.

"No one can deny the unsafe tactics used by some Chinese food companies. And, to have a Chinese food company controlling a major U.S. meat supplier, without shareholder accountability, is a bit concerning," Grassley said in a statement.

Some China skeptics, including Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, have supported the deal in principal, and Randy Forbes, the Republican who represents Smithfield's Congressional district in Virginia, was measured in his response.

Forbes said the potential takeover "warrants robust analysis and review to ensure the safety and security of America's citizens as well as the preservation of national economic interests, food safety, and environmental standards. I look forward to following that review process closely."

Mark McMinimy, a policy analyst with Guggenheim Securities in Washington, said the deal "is not likely to face serious U.S. government-related roadblocks," and also is not likely to run into resistance when it is reviewed by CFIUS.

The interagency government panel reviews transactions that would bring U.S. businesses under foreign-owned control and is comprised of the heads of a number of departments, including Treasury, State, Justice, Commerce and Homeland Security. Its deliberations are tightly guarded.

"CFIUS's scrutiny of this acquisition is vitally important. How might this deal impact our national security? What role does the Chinese government play in Shuanghui, like it does in so many other 'private' companies? These are important questions for CFIUS to get answered," Grassley said.

Aaron Schock, an Illinois Republican and a member of the House subcommittee on trade whose district includes several hog farms, raised concerns about food safety. "We have to be cautious that a Chinese-run firm wouldn't result in Chinese standards here in the U.S.," he said. "The safety of the consumer is the utmost concern and if that can't be dealt with, then this deal might be for naught."

The National Farmers Union, which mostly represents family farms and co-ops, said it opposed the deal out of concerns about concentration in the agricultural markets. "Now, in one fell swoop, 26 percent of U.S. pork processing and 15 percent of domestic hog production will be controlled by a foreign company," it said in a statement.

Given that the company is not focused on defense, energy, or infrastructure, approval seems likely, according to Charles Skuba, a business professor at Georgetown University.

Shuanghui has promised not to close or move any of Smithfield's operations and will keep current management, including CEO Larry Pope, in place.

"We may have some CFIUS concerns in relation to exactly what land Smithfield owns and what its proximity is to sensitive national security installations. But for the most part, I think they can work around that," said Skuba.

Paul Marquardt, a partner at Cleary Gottlieb who works on cross-border deals, said that CFIUS review is a concern for Chinese companies looking to expand in the United States since they often say they find the process opaque and unfair.

"I think a successful deal will help convince Chinese firms that they can get a fair shake in the U.S. They need to see that just because a deal is Chinese doesn't mean it will be blocked," Marquardt said.

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Regulatory News: DEALTALK-China Inc's Smithfield bid expected to pass Washington test

Reuters: Regulatory News
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
DEALTALK-China Inc's Smithfield bid expected to pass Washington test
May 31st 2013, 17:11

By Michael Erman, Olivia Oran and Greg Roumeliotis

Fri May 31, 2013 1:11pm EDT

May 31 (Reuters) - Washington may still be digesting news of China Inc's latest bold move into America with the nearly $5 billion takeover of Smithfield Foods Inc, but early indications are the deal will not inflame enough nationalistic opposition to kill it, and success could pave the way for more Chinese purchases.

Shuanghui International Holdings' agreement to buy Smithfield would be the largest ever acquisition of a U.S. company by a Chinese one. The bid - an effort to feed a growing Chinese appetite for U.S. pork - has stirred some concern among U.S. politicians and will face review by a Treasury committee.

To many dealmakers and executives, that review is procedural and should not set off alarms.

"I don't think the Smithfield deal will have problems," said David Marchick, who leads private equity firm Carlyle Group LP's government, public and regulatory affairs and was not involved in the deal. "It's not a sensitive sector. They are keeping American management. And the U.S. agricultural community would love to export more to China."

Carlyle, which has done several deals involving China, did not encounter any problems last year when it sold one of its portfolio companies, U.S. movie theater operator AMC Entertainment, to Chinese conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group, Marchick said. The $2.6 billion deal was the fifth largest M&A transaction by a Chinese company in the United States, according to Thomson Reuters data.

"Most Chinese acquisitions in the U.S. will not encounter regulatory or political challenges. Three or four deals a year do encounter problems - and garner all the attention," said Marchick, who has co-authored a book on U.S. national security and foreign direct investment.

The Smithfield deal could certainly still face opposition on Capitol Hill. Congress is out of session right now, and foreign policy hawks such as Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Senator John McCain of Arizona have yet to weigh in. Last week both Senators expressed concerns about the takeover of Sprint Nextel Corp by Japan's SoftBank Corp, due mainly to security concerns related to telecom equipment from China.

Chinese companies have become more comfortable looking to do deals in the United States, in spite of the 2005 rejection of China National Offshore Oil Corp's $18.5 billion attempt to buy U.S. energy company Unocal. CNOOC's bid was thwarted by fierce political opposition because of national security concerns.

With over $10.5 billion of deals by Chinese companies in the United States so far, 2013 is on pace to be the largest year ever for inbound M&A by Chinese companies, according to Thomson Reuters data. There were $11.5 billion worth of deals by Chinese companies in the United States in 2012, which was itself a significantly higher figure than in any year other than 2007.

"I do think it's helpful to get a large transaction with a Chinese buyer through," said Adel Aslani-Far, global co-chair of the M&A practice at Latham & Watkins. "It's a shot in the arm to the deal economy and to attitudes about Chinese deals. Something sizable like this could be a very good sign to the market that the conditions are right here and will encourage further Chinese investment into the U.S."

Smithfield shares were trading at around $32.94 on Friday, 3.1 percent below the $34 a share offered by Shuanghui.

NATIONAL SECURITY QUESTIONS

Shuanghui's acquisition of Virginia-based Smithfield Foods will face scrutiny by the Treasury's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS. Congress has no authority to block the deal but can exert political pressure.

The Smithfield deal has generated limited response from Congress so far with only a handful of lawmakers - notably Charles Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa, the largest U.S. hog producing state - expressing doubts.

"No one can deny the unsafe tactics used by some Chinese food companies. And, to have a Chinese food company controlling a major U.S. meat supplier, without shareholder accountability, is a bit concerning," Grassley said in a statement.

Some China skeptics, including Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, have supported the deal in principal, and Randy Forbes, the Republican who represents Smithfield's Congressional district in Virginia, was measured in his response.

Forbes said the potential takeover "warrants robust analysis and review to ensure the safety and security of America's citizens as well as the preservation of national economic interests, food safety, and environmental standards. I look forward to following that review process closely."

Mark McMinimy, a policy analyst with Guggenheim Securities in Washington, said the deal "is not likely to face serious U.S. government-related roadblocks," and also is not likely to run into resistance when it is reviewed by CFIUS.

The interagency government panel reviews transactions that would bring U.S. businesses under foreign-owned control and is comprised of the heads of a number of departments, including Treasury, State, Justice, Commerce and Homeland Security. Its deliberations are tightly guarded.

"CFIUS's scrutiny of this acquisition is vitally important. How might this deal impact our national security? What role does the Chinese government play in Shuanghui, like it does in so many other 'private' companies? These are important questions for CFIUS to get answered," Grassley said.

Given that the company is not focused on defense, energy, or infrastructure, approval seems likely, according to Charles Skuba, a business professor at Georgetown University.

Shuanghui has promised not to close or move any of Smithfield's operations and will keep current management, including CEO Larry Pope, in place.

"We may have some CFIUS concerns in relation to exactly what land Smithfield owns and what its proximity is to sensitive national security installations. But for the most part, I think they can work around that," said Skuba.

Paul Marquardt, a partner at Cleary Gottlieb who works on cross-border deals, said that CFIUS review is a concern for Chinese companies looking to expand in the United States since they often say they find the process opaque and unfair.

"I think a successful deal will help convince Chinese firms that they can get a fair shake in the U.S. They need to see that just because a deal is Chinese doesn't mean it will be blocked," Marquardt said.

Timothy Dattels, a senior partner in buyout firm TPG Capital and former head of Asian investment banking at Goldman Sachs Group Inc, said Chinese buyers were typically different from other foreign investors focused more on "trophy assets."

"My view is that the Chinese will be much more strategic and sophisticated, investing in industries where they want to gain domain knowledge, build expertise and add to their supply chain and global connectivity," he said.

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Regulatory News: UPDATE 3-Financier Hands' EMI lawsuit vs Citigroup revived

Reuters: Regulatory News
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
UPDATE 3-Financier Hands' EMI lawsuit vs Citigroup revived
May 31st 2013, 18:29

Fri May 31, 2013 2:29pm EDT

* New trial ordered over Terra Firma's 2007 EMI buyout

* U.S. appeals court says jury instructions erroneous

* Citigroup defends actions, confident will prevail

By Jonathan Stempel

May 31 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court has revived British financier Guy Hands' lawsuit accusing Citigroup Inc of defrauding him into overpaying for music company EMI Group Ltd, a disastrous purchase that reflected the risk of buying debt-laden companies during the buyout bubble.

Ordering a new trial, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan threw out a November 2010 jury verdict against Hands' private equity firm, Terra Firma Capital Partners, over its 4 billion pound purchase of EMI in 2007 - now US$6.1 billion.

The court said a new trial was needed because U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan had instructed jurors improperly on English law, which both sides agreed governed the case.

Citigroup seized EMI in February 2011 and eventually sold it in pieces after Terra Firma had defaulted on some loans and was unable to support EMI's debt load.

Hands initially sought $8 billion in damages, though Rakoff later reduced a potential award to roughly $2 billion.

EMI's catalog of artists has included the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen and Tina Turner as well as newer stars like Coldplay, David Guetta and Katy Perry.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Terra Firma won EMI at a May 2007 auction and New York-based Citigroup agreed to provide much of the financing.

Hands later claimed that David Wormsley, a top Citigroup banker in Europe and one-time friend, had told him a high bid was needed to top one by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, when in fact Cerberus had decided to withdraw.

Hands said he did not learn until September 2007 that Cerberus did not bid for EMI, leaving Terra Firma as the only bidder. Citigroup has denied wrongdoing, and argued at trial that Hands sued because of buyer's remorse.

The jury found that Citigroup was not liable to Terra Firma for fraudulent misrepresentation, and awarded nothing to Hands.

A three-judge 2nd Circuit panel, however, said Rakoff did not adhere to English law by instructing jurors that Terra Firma had to prove it relied on Wormsley's misrepresentations and that the misrepresentations were a substantial factor in the overbid.

"Absent fundamental error, we are loath to overturn a jury verdict in a civil case," Circuit Judge John Walker wrote for the panel. "Because the jury instructions incorrectly shifted the burden of proof from Citi to Terra Firma on the reliance element, they were prejudicial and require reversal."

CITIGROUP CONFIDENT WILL PREVAIL

Citigroup on Friday defended its actions.

"We are confident we will again prevail at trial as Citi's conduct in the EMI transaction was entirely proper," spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos said. "The original verdict made clear that Terra Firma's baseless accusations of fraud were simply an attempt to gain leverage in debt restructuring negotiations."

A Terra Firma spokesman said: "We continue to believe that we have a strong claim, and with the jury instructions now resolved in our favor, we expect to prevail in any subsequent trial."

David Boies, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner representing Hands, said he was "looking forward to a new trial with new jury instructions."

After seizing EMI, Citigroup sold the company's recorded music business to Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group for about $1.9 billion, and its music publishing business to a group including Sony Corp and the estate of singer Michael Jackson for about $2.2 billion.

Citigroup and Terra Firma agreed that English law applied to the case because that country had the most significant relationship. England was where EMI was based and publicly traded, the alleged misrepresentations were made, and the financing was arranged.

The case is Terra Firma Investments (GP) 2 Ltd et al v. Citigroup Inc et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-126.

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.