Login:
Password:

With the Yahoo deal nixed, the lawsuits pick up steam

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

May 6, 2008, 11:33 AM

Is it the duty of a CEO to make sure his company's shareholders can make a big short-term gain, even if it means the loss of the company in the long term? A Delaware court will decide that question when it hears Yahoo shareholders' case.

A class-action suit against Yahoo filed last February 21 in Delaware, originally on behalf of shareholders of retirement funds for Detroit city workers and law enforcement personnel, could pick up added class members as a result of last weekend's Yahoo and Microsoft merger talk failure. Attorneys on behalf of the shareholders are confirming today that they're pressing ahead with plans to hold Yahoo's chief executives and board of directors liable for failing to enter into a deal that would likely have maximized their share value.

"If [Yahoo CEO] Jerry Yang wants to understand why Yahoo shareholders are so unhappy, he should go to his new favorite search engine -- Google -- and look up the phrase 'breach of fiduciary duty,'" reads a statement from plaintiff's lead attorney Mark Lebovitch. His case puts forth the theory that Yahoo executives were willing instead to minimize their company's value by giving away one of their prize components -- its search portal -- to Google, in order to nix a Microsoft deal.

"Yang's willingness to put the heart of Yahoo's search function in Google's hands to preclude a Microsoft bid representing a 70%-plus premium demonstrates that Yang was never negotiating in good faith," Lebovitch continued.

Indeed, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer blamed Yahoo's opening up of communication with Google for having spoiled the deal. In his letter to Yang on Saturday, Ballmer wrote that a Google partnership, "would fundamentally undermine Yahoo's own strategy and long-term viability by encouraging advertisers to use Google as opposed to your Panama paid search system. This would also fragment your search advertising and display advertising strategies and the ecosystem surrounding them. This would undermine the reliance on your display advertising business to fuel future growth...Given this, it would impair Yahoo's ability to retain the talented engineers working on advertising systems that are important to our interest in a combination of our companies."

For its part, Google only indirectly acknowledged any communication between it and Yahoo took place, though it never confirmed the existence of talks on a full-fledged business agreement, such as a swap of assets. However, Ballmer's letter does point to a likelihood that the existence of such talks were at least revealed to him.

The class-action suit alleges Yahoo's failure to maximize value dates back several years, at least to 2004, at a time when Terry Semel headed the company and when Google systematically defeated Yahoo in their competition for search-driven ad revenue. By the time Jerry Yang succeeded Semel last year, the lawsuit alleges Yahoo's business model was already failing, and that Yang was doing little or nothing to turn the company around. In light of that characterization, the Microsoft offer is described as a "gift."

But Yang was driven not to pursue that gift -- in fact, to avoid it at all costs -- to the extent, the lawsuit alleges, that he was willing to entertain the idea (or at least leak to the press that he was considering doing so) of a business deal with News Corp., AOL, or Google just to poison his own company. The suit relies on Wall Street Journal reports for its evidence, rather than company communication, which has apparently yet to be subpoenaed. WSJ reports in late February and early March speculated that Yang and Chairman Roy Bostock may have been trying to conclude a deal with News Corp. or another suitor, prior to shareholders having a chance to vote on the deal, under a structure that, by company bylaws, would not have required shareholder oversight.

"Without the need to obtain shareholder approval or satisfy financing contingencies, the Yahoo Board will be in position to rapidly foreclose Microsoft's superior offer at the expense of Yahoo and its shareholders," the February lawsuit alleges. "The Yahoo Directors should be enjoined from doing so because, as alleged in detail herein, they have allowed their own inflated egos and self interest impair their ability to assess the true value presented by Microsoft's latest acquisition offer."

Analyzing the deal's breakup and fallout yesterday, AR Communications senior vice president Carmi Levy told BetaNews that he believes Yang's conduct during the entire affair may bear scrutiny.

"As the chief executive officer of a publicly traded company, your primary accountability is to preserve and enhance shareholder value," remarked Levy. "One can very easily question whether Yahoo's actions in recent weeks have done that, or whether they've frittered away shareholder value in the process simply for an emotional, and possibly business-illogical, reason."

Yahoo stock on the NASDAQ exchange recovered a bit of what it had lost the day before, trading up about 4% in value by 11:15 am EDT to $25 and change, after closing Monday below $25. Its stock had traded as high as $44 per share in early 2006. The company's annual shareholders' meeting is slated for July 3.

Add a Comment (6 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By robmanic44

posted May 6, 2008 - 6:30 PM

In business today, there is no long term. All the stockholders want to know is: Where's my money? The average investor knows just enough to be dangerous to his assets.

If you invested in real estate 3 years ago, you got filthy rich. Now you are losing your butt. I owned one house that tripled in value in a year. Look where housing is now. That's just an example of how investments can go from very good to horrid.

I don't know where Yahoo will be in a year, but then I don't think these lawyers or their clients know either.

Score: 0

By karlslZ

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:08 AM

I understand when shareholders invest in a company they have rights to know where the company is going. If they like where the company is going, they keep and buy more. if they don't like it, they sell the stocks. the CEO of the company will know about it thru stock performance because it affect his stock in his company, too. For many CEOs, the return from their stocks is much more than their annual salaries.
I understand your comment about investment in real estate. But they are two different categories of investment, though. When you buy a house, you depends on the housing market to predict the future value of your investment. there is nothing you can do about it when the market is bad. Whereas owning a stock is like having a team of professional managers manage your money. before investing in a company, shouldn't the money holders do research about the company first, such as past stock performance, prospectus that the company submit quarterly, I think, and the news of this company about new product announcement... etc. they invest when they trust the ability of CEO and managers to invest their money in a way to maximize their return in the long run. Of course, the investors won't know where the company is going in a year or longer, they just have to trust the CEO. After all, those people have their jobs in the first place is because they have a vision as to where the company is going. I think the investors should be able to find that from prospectus. If the investors don't trust them or don't like them, they should not buy stocks in the first place. if they own the stock, they should sell it, instead of bit@ching about it.
I still believe that the US companies have to focus on long term growth in order to stay alive in the world market. the company whose sole focus is to maximize shareholders value in the short term is going to lost out. the Detroit big three is an example. Many years ago when everything was good and the gas price was cheap. they were earning record profit on SUV and trucks. I remember they happily said that they would continue to focus on SUV and trucks where they were good at and earning good margin from it. after all, they said, SUV and truckers were what the US consumers want. at that time, I thought they were crazy, and predicted that their stock would drop when the gas went up, which was inevitable. I understand they have to make what the customers want and focus on core competence, which is their ability to make good SUV and trucks. But I don't know if they have taken into consideration that their product takes 3 years, at least, and millions to develop. They shouldn't predict what customers want by the situation at that time. They should predict what the customer wanted 3 years from then. they have to look ahead.what customers want depend on the price of gas and economy. the price of gas depends on world demand, not US demand. And the world demand depends on the economic developments of other countries. What happen to the US auto companies right now is the result of focusing on short term vision, trying to satisfy their shareholders' immediate need.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted May 6, 2008 - 3:24 PM

I hate to bring this up, but...wait, no I don't:

Told ya so!

Score: 0

By karlslZ

posted May 6, 2008 - 1:38 PM

this class action lawsuit is ridiculous. If the shareholders do not like what CEO is doing, they should have sold the shares. They are in for the surprise when they buy the share is purely for short term profit only. Only the company that would sacrifice short term gain for long term potential growth can survive. the only thing Jerry is guilty of is believing that company can become better. He just has to prove that he is right. The only power shareholders have is to decide where the company is going by selling and buying its stocks. that's all. Only the CEO and the board of directors have true power as where the company is going.
If shareholders win the case, then very CEO of US public companies have to think about short term gain only to satisfy their short sighted investors. This will serious tight one arm in their back when they compete with foreign companies who focus on long term growth. There are only two sad results when US companies lost the world market: lower stock prices and more people looking for jobs in the US.

Score: 0

By lvthunder

posted May 6, 2008 - 2:12 PM

You obviously don't know the laws about this type stuff. Jerry was actively trying to kill Yahoo so Microsoft wouldn't want to buy them. The stockholders are the owners of the company so the company is obligated to do what is in their best interests. So now it's up to a judge to determine if Jerry's moves throughout this process was best for Yahoo's owners (the stock holders).

Score: 0

By karlslZ

posted May 6, 2008 - 11:19 PM

I understand you are looking at it from shareholder's lawyer and Microsoft's point of view. as for Jerry was actively trying to kill Yahoo depends on the perspective. To shareholders and Microsoft, asking for competitor's help is bad for reputation and business. because of this action, they perceive that Jerry is trying to kill Yahoo. Maybe they forgot that Jerry also owns several million shares of Yahoo stock. by not taking Microsoft's offer, he has lost even more than majority of shareholders. To understand why Jerry does not want to accept the offer, I guess we have to wait until he explains to the judge.
I personally don't believe he is actively trying to kill Yahoo. he created Yahoo and he is rich from it, and he still has a lot of stocks in this company. it would not be smart for him to destroy his future income. Maybe he has something in his sleeves to turn the company around. We just have to wait and see.

Score: 0