November 22, 2024

DealBook: Diageo Ends Talks to Buy Jose Cuervo Brand

Donald Traill /AP Images for Jose Cuervo

8:07 p.m. | Updated

LONDON — The British liquor company Diageo said on Tuesday that it had ended talks to take over the tequila brand Jose Cuervo after failing to agree on a deal with its owners.

Diageo, the maker of Smirnoff vodka and Johnnie Walker Scotch, will stop distributing Cuervo when an agreement with the tequila brand’s owners, the Beckmann family of Mexico, expires at the end of June after 27 years.
The two sides failed to agree on a price for the brand, which analysts had valued at about $3 billion, said a person with direct knowledge of the negotiations, who declined to be identified discussing private talks.

The breakdown of Diageo’s talks with the Beckmanns, who are heirs of the founding Cuervo family, is also likely to fuel speculation that Diageo might be interested in the Beam spirits group in the United States, which owns the tequila brand Sauza.

For now, Diageo said it would focus on developing its Don Julio tequila brand, which is smaller but aimed at a higher-end and faster-growing customer base than Jose Cuervo, according to the company.

Paul S. Walsh, Diageo’s chief executive, said in a statement that the future of Cuervo “would be best delivered by aligning ownership of the brand with its route to market, and I have no doubt that Diageo has the best route to market for this brand.

“However,” he continued, “it has not been possible to agree a transaction which delivers value for Diageo’s shareholders.”

Shares in Diageo fell 1.64 percent in London on Tuesday.

Diageo has been distributing Cuervo outside Mexico since 1986 in a deal that made up about 3 percent of Diageo’s group sales, or about £300 million ($481 million).

The end of the discussions is a setback for Diageo’s plan to expand in faster-growing markets outside Europe, including China, India and Latin America. The company bought a majority stake in United Spirits of India in November after years of negotiations with Vijay Mallya, the Indian tycoon whose family created the liquor brand.

Other makers of alcoholic beverages have been seeking to increase earnings abroad to make up for sluggish demand at home. Asia Pacific Breweries accepted a $4.6 billion bid from the Dutch brewer Heineken for a stake in the company in September. In June, Anheuser-Busch InBev took full control of Grupo Modelo of Mexico, the maker of Corona Extra beer.

Cuervo traces its roots to 1795, when José María Guadalupe de Cuervo received the first official permit from the king of Spain to make tequila. The drink is made from the blue agave plant.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/diageo-ends-talks-to-buy-jose-cuervo-brand/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: The Estate Tax Saga That Never Ends

Paul Sullivan’s topic this week in his Wealth Matters column is estate taxes — specifically taxes on the assets of the wealthy who died in 2010, the year the estate tax lapsed.

When President Obama and Congressional Republicans agreed to reinstate the taxes this year, they also decided to give heirs of those who died in 2010 a choice: file an estate tax return under the new law or opt out and be subject to a different set of taxes. And figuring out those different taxes has turned out to be a major headache, Paul writes, in part because the Internal Revenue Service has not yet completed the form that must be used for filing the alternate taxes.

Yes, this is a problem for the very wealthy. But the trials and tribulations of the rich and famous are often interesting to the rest of us. Take note that among the billionaires who died in 2010 were Dan L. Duncan, an oil tycoon whose estate was the subject of this Times article, and George M. Steinbrenner, who owned the New York Yankees.

Tell us your nightmare tax tales below, in the comments section.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=64f3a179d2d9d2ef827c0ddc36584196

Bucks: AARP Files Another Reverse Mortgage Suit

In recent months, AARP Foundation Litigation has prodded the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to reverse a rule change that had made it harder for some surviving spouses of reverse mortgage holders to stay in their homes. Now, the foundation is turning to the financial institutions that own and service the mortgages.

This week, the foundation, along with the law firms Mehri Skalet and Kerr Wagstaffe, filed a class action suit against both Wells Fargo and Fannie Mae on behalf of reverse mortgage holders and their heirs. The dispute is over what should be a simple question: Should heirs to a home that has an outstanding reverse mortgage pay the lender the remaining balance on the loan to clear the debt? Or should they merely write a check or get a new mortgage for the (often much smaller, nowadays) market value if they want to keep the home?

It’s yet another dispute born of the collapse in housing prices in some areas of the country, though it has a few twists because of the unique rules of reverse mortgages.

Reverse mortgages allow you to take equity out of your home without having to make monthly payments back to the bank, as you would with a home equity loan. How much you get depends on your age (you have to be at least 62) and the equity you have in your home in the first place, among other things.

AARP argues that upon death of a reverse mortgage borrower, say a single person, heirs are supposed to have a choice between paying off the loan, paying 95 percent of the home’s fair market value or giving the home to the lender in order to satisfy the loan. But Wells Fargo, acting as a servicer for Fannie Mae, told one of AARP’s named plaintiffs that he had no choice but to pay the full amount of the loan, even though the home was worth much less than that at the time he inherited it.

The root of the confusion about who owes what in these circumstances may lie in differing interpretations of the breadth of the HUD rule that AARP beat back a couple of months ago. It’s hard to say for sure though; a Fannie Mae spokeswoman declined my request to comment on the suit, citing the company’s policy of not talking about pending litigation. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said that company was still reviewing the complaint and could not comment by the time this post went up.

Whatever your view of the law, however, an AARP lawyer, Jean Constantine-Davis, says that logic would suggest letting the heir buy the home at the fair market value. Given that most heirs couldn’t get a new standard mortgage from a bank for the actual reverse mortgage balance if that balance was more than the home’s actual market value, why wouldn’t Fannie Mae sell the home to the heir for fair market value? The alternative is to go through the trouble of foreclosing on it, listing it for sale and then selling it for that same fair market value to someone else.

In fact, Ms. Constantine-Davis notes, the heirs may pay more than fair market value, given their sentimental attachment to the family home.

Ms. Constantine-Davis’s point is a pretty good one, and she said she was unable to get Fannie Mae to respond to her and the other lawyers’ inquiries. So now we have another lawsuit.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c7fc5e6fa1858f7cd7575606d42c9104