Matt Taibbi ~ Jobs Act Fallout: More Fraud

Rolling Stone | RS_News | June 8 2012

Initial public offeringOPINION ~ I’m on vacation, very far from home, so apologies for the short post. I’ll be back online next week, and we have a fun story coming out in Rolling Stone the week after that.

In the meantime, I wanted first of all to thank everyone who participated in the Thunderclap Twitter experiment. I’m away, and haven’t heard the full report yet, but I understand it was a rousing success. I’ll find out more when I come home, but until then, thank you all again for taking the time to sign up.

One story I did want to pass on while I was gone is a very interesting Wall Street Journal piece entitled, “Meet the JOBS Act’s Jobs-Free Companies.” A few months ago, I wrote a few articles about the JOBS Act, which a number of friends of mine from congress and from the regulatory community insisted would pave the way for a return to the IPO fraud boom of the late nineties, if not for a return to the penny-stock fraud age.

Well, eight weeks after the passage of the law, we’re finding some unexpected results. Among the more controversial provisions of the JOBS Act, remember, was a sort of blanket regulatory exemption for so-called “Emerging Growth Companies,” which were loosely defined as public companies with less than $1 billion in annual revenues. Among other things, the new law allows such companies to avoid independent accounting requirements for the first five years of their existence.

According to the WSJ, what’s happening now is that the JOBS Act is being used to facilitate what are known as “reverse mergers.” Because it’s traditionally been difficult for new companies to meet the regulatory requirements for going public, what’s often happened is that young companies look for dormant or dead corporations that are already registered. They then merge with those “empty shell” companies, use their corporate structures, and thusly avoid the IPO process altogether. This process is called a “reverse merger.”

Continue reading

Travis Waldron ~ Former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine Gets $8 Million Pay Package After Firm Went Bankrupt

Nation Of Change | May 22 2012

Jon Corzine, the former chief executive of bankrupt financial firm MF Global, received an $8 million pay package in the year his company plummeted into bankruptcy and faced a shortfall in customer funds totaling $1.6 billion.

Corzine resigned from the firm and turned down an $11 million severance package after MF Global filed for bankruptcy October, and he is not likely to realize the more than $5 million of his pay package that is tied to the firm’s now worthless stock. But he didn’t walk away empty-handed, the Wall Street Journal reports:

About $5.35 million of Mr. Corzine’s compensation came in the form of stock options, which are now worthless as a result of MF Global’s failure. Still, the former New Jersey governor and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. chairman got more than $3 million in cash compensation, including a $1.25 million bonus.

Though Corzine may be the most extreme example, he isn’t the only financial industry CEO whose pay is out-of-whack with the performance of the company he oversees. In 2011, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan made six times what he made in 2010 even as the bank’s stock price was cut in half. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s pay increased 13.7 percent (to $19 million) in 2011, even as shareholder return declined 45.6 percent. Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf received a 2.1 percent bump in pay (to $17.9 million); the company’s shareholders saw their returns decline 9.5 percent.

Continue reading

Rupert Murdoch’s American Media Immunity

 Michael Wolff (Guardian UK) | RS_News | April 4 2012

OPINION ~ Last week, PBS aired a Frontline documentary, more then six months in the making, about Rupert Murdoch‘s phone-hacking scandal. The big budget film, hosted and reported by Lowell Bergman, one of the pre-eminent US investigative journalists, broke no news nor offered new perspectives about the affair. Rather, the show – the first US documentary to delve into the Murdoch scandals – gave a diligent, if somewhat flat-footed account of events that came to a head last summer, for an audience that, the producers seemed to assume, had missed most of the story.

In the same week, the BBC and the Australian Financial Review, opened up an entirely new chapter in the ever-expanding chronicles of News Corporation‘s scandals: NDS, a News Corp subsidiary company that developed encryption technology for pay TV outlets, had allegedly mounted a long-term effort of piracy and hacking in an effort to undermine its competitors. News Corp’s Australian arm has denied the allegations.

Here’s the thing: Murdoch’s empire may be under siege in one of the most riveting business tales of our time – featuring wounded celebrities, a dynastic family drama, and toadying at the highest levels of government – but American journalism has been mostly absent from the story. At best, it has been a sidelined presence, late to the game, and generally confused about how to get ahead of events happening in another country. This is, arguably, the best thing Murdoch has going for him: in the US, the seat of his company and the main motor of his fortunes, he has been able to hide in plain sight.

So, why the disconnect? In a universe of equal-access global information, how can such parallel worlds comfortably exist? In the world abroad, almost everything is coming apart for Murdoch: his top executives, including his son, face possible imprisonment, his businesses face dismemberment, his reputation is in ruins. In the world at home, he remains the largely untouchable chief executive of one of the most influential companies in the nation. Within the US business and journalistic community, there is no real sense that he is even vulnerable – precisely, or circularly, because it would require a US outcry to bring him down. And the business and journalistic communities, which would have to lead that outcry, haven’t begun to stir.

Continue reading