April 25, 2024

H.P. Chairman Steps Down as 2 Resign From Board

The move may give Meg Whitman, H.P.’s chief executive, a little more breathing room in her long and painful effort to turn the technology giant around. H.P. is one of the biggest technology companies in terms of sales, but for years it has been marked with financial losses, bungled acquisitions, and turbulence in the executive ranks and boardroom.

Ms. Whitman, who took over in September 2011, has said H.P. will return to modest profitability in 2014 and have robust growth in the years after.

“The pressure is on Meg,” said Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst with Bernstein Research. But, he said, a housecleaning of the board “bought her a year.”

Mr. Lane, who will continue to serve on the board, will be temporarily succeeded by Ralph Whitworth, an activist shareholder who joined the H.P. board in November 2011. He has been a champion of Ms. Whitman.

No successors for the departing board members — John H. Hammergren and G. Kennedy Thompson — were immediately named. The two, who barely survived re-election to the board at a meeting in late March, are expected to serve until May.

During the shareholders meeting, Mr. Whitworth took the unusual step of indicating, while voting for directors was under way, that some board members would soon step down.

“All boards should evolve, certainly when they’ve had the recent past this one does,” he said. “You can expect some evolution of the board over the coming years — months, maybe.”

It is not clear whether this comment swayed some votes toward Mr. Hammergren and Mr. Thompson, two of the longest-serving board members. Mr. Hammergren received 54 percent of the vote and Mr. Thompson 55 percent. Mr. Lane was re-elected with 59 percent of all votes cast. Other board members had majorities of over 90 percent.

“Having under 60 percent is not a vote of confidence,” Mr. Sacconaghi said. “They worked hard to secure support, and in the end they barely got a majority for these three people. It reflected the sins of the past.”

Mr. Lane said the vote was a major reason he was stepping down.

“After reflecting on the stockholder vote last month, I’ve decided to step down as executive chairman to reduce any distraction from H.P.’s ongoing turnaround,” he said in a statement issued on Thursday by H.P.

In the same statement, Mr. Whitworth said Ms. Whitman “is leading a herculean turnaround, so most of all, we must build and maintain the best possible leadership structure for Meg and H.P.’s entire team to succeed.”

Mr. Lane and the other two board members were publicly criticized for their oversight of H.P., including a spectacularly expensive acquisition that later failed, both before and after the shareholder vote. On Thursday, their critics were quick to praise their resignations.

“Directors must be willing to ask tough questions, challenge assumptions and have the capacity to walk away from a deal that is unlikely to add value for shareholders,” said ISS, a proxy advisory firm that opposed Mr. Lane. “That clearly didn’t happen at H.P., and shareholders hold Mr. Lane accountable for that failure.”

The New York City comptroller, John C. Liu, another critic of the company, said in a statement, “H.P.’s board got the message.” He added, “This a good day for H.P., its board and its share owners.” The New York City pension fund has over $100 million in H.P. stock.

Mr. Hammergren, who as chief executive of the McKesson Corporation is one of the highest-paid chief executives in the United States, has served on H.P.’s board since 2005. He was on the board while it was at the center of a scandal involving spying on journalists, board members and employees, and during the 2010 resignation of Mark Hurd as chief executive after he admitted to improper relations with a contract employee.

Mr. Hurd’s successor, Léo Apotheker, lasted less than a year. He was hired without meeting or speaking with most members of the board. As chief, he agreed to pay $11.1 billion for Autonomy, a British software company and mused publicly about whether to sell H.P.’s personal computer business. He was succeeded by Ms. Whitman a month after those actions.

Late last year, H.P. took a more than $8 billion accounting charge in conjunction with the Autonomy purchase. It contended that it had been misled about the health of the company.

Mr. Thompson, a principal of Aquiline Capital Partners and a former chairman of Wachovia, joined the H.P. board in 2006, after the spying scandal. Mr. Lane, a former president of Oracle and a venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins, joined the H.P. board in 2010. He was a vocal supporter of Mr. Apotheker.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/technology/hewlett-packard-chairman-steps-down.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Buffett’s Bank of America Stake Is Viewed as a Seal of Approval

Warren Buffett’s investment has a guaranteed payout.Lucas Jackson/ReutersWarren E. Buffett’s investment has a guaranteed payout.

The financial crisis has been good to Warren E. Buffett.

The billionaire investor snatched up shares of Goldman Sachs and General Electric during some of the darkest days of 2008, injecting life and funds into the companies and turning a handsome profit later. On Goldman alone, Mr. Buffett netted $1.7 billion.

On Thursday, he sought to turn the same trick again, investing $5 billion in an institution that is still struggling to recover from the financial crisis, Bank of America. Like the Goldman deal, the Bank of America infusion comes with a rich plum: a guaranteed dividend payout of about $300 million a year, whether the stock goes up or down.

The stock shot up on Thursday as the investment allayed concerns about the bank. Its shares rose as much as 27 percent, before ending the day up 9.4 percent, at $7.65.

“He has the golden touch,” said Mitchel Penn, an analyst with Legg Mason Capital Management, one of Bank of America’s largest shareholders. “It’s a wonderful vote of confidence in Bank of America.”

The deal came together quickly. On Wednesday morning, Mr. Buffett’s assistant called the office of Brian T. Moynihan, the Bank of America chief executive, and a call was set up, said two people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly about it.

Mr. Moynihan told the investor that the bank did not need capital. Mr. Buffett responded by saying that he was planning to invest for the long term and outlined a proposal. Interested, Mr. Moynihan suggested that the two of them meet to discuss it. No, thanks, Mr. Buffett said, his mind was made up and he didn’t need a sit-down. The call was soon over.

In the hours that followed, Mr. Moynihan, Bruce Thompson, the bank’s chief financial officer, and Charles Holliday, the chairman, met and briefed directors on Mr. Buffett’s proposal. Lawyers for both sides — Munger, Tolles Olson for Mr. Buffett’s company and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen Katz, which represented Bank of America — hashed out the details, working straight through the night.

Robert E. Denham, a partner at Munger Tolles, said there were no major hurdles to an agreement. “It’s a very boring story,” he said laughing. “Just a very, very intense turning of the documents.”

At 7 a.m. on Thursday, the board held a conference call to approve the deal.

The investment comes at a pivotal time for Bank of America. It has set aside more than $20 billion to cover its legal exposure for mortgages made during the housing bubble, and the bank faces a nationwide investigation into its foreclosure practices. Last quarter, Bank of America reported an $8.8 billion loss, owing in large part to a settlement with mortgage investors.

Mr. Buffett is aware of the bank’s mortgage issues, but a person briefed on his thinking said that the investor felt that Bank of America was well positioned to make money over the long term and that the legal woes would diminish.

At the age of 80, Mr. Buffett can claim a global reputation as a savvy investor for his bets on railroads, insurers and famous brands like Coca-Cola. But in recent years, he has also become one of the world’s mightiest champions of the banking industry.

With the $5 billion investment by his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffett stands to eventually become the largest shareholder in Bank of America, according to Thomson Reuters data. Berkshire is already the biggest shareholder in Wells Fargo and American Express. It stands to be a large stakeholder in Goldman when shares he obtained during the financial crisis convert.

“He always likes to buy into industries he understands and he feels comfortable with banking,” said Drew Woodbury, an analyst with Morningstar.

That was not always the case. In his 1990 letter to shareholders Mr. Buffett wrote, “The banking business is no favorite of ours.”

He had good reason to be skeptical.

Just before the market crash of 1987, Berkshire bought $700 million of preferred shares in Salomon Inc.

To protect his holdings, Mr. Buffett did something unusual, stepping in to become chairman in August 1991 after he forced out Salomon’s chairman, John Gutfreund, during a Treasury auction scandal. Mr. Buffett was widely credited with saving Salomon from collapsing by quickly cleaning house and winning over angry clients, politicians and investors. Mr. Buffett stepped down as chairman of Salomon about 10 months later. It was many years before he would return to Wall Street.

During the financial crisis in September 2008, Mr. Buffett came to the rescue of Goldman, investing $5 billion in the firm. A week later, he bought $3 billion in preferred shares from General Electric, as the conglomerate’s shares were plummeting.

Each investment proved to be highly profitable for Mr. Buffett, with the preferred shares carrying a requirement that Goldman and G.E. pay a 10 percent premium to buy Berkshire out. Goldman has since bought back Mr. Buffett’s holdings, while G.E. has said that it intends to do so.

By some measures, his Bank of America investment closely resembles the earlier deals. Each contained investments of $5 billion or lower and the deals all included warrants with strike prices near the pre-deal share price. During the crisis, however, Mr. Buffett commanded a steeper price.

“It was an indication of how bad it was at the time,” said Mr. Woodbury of Morningstar.

Under the terms of the Bank of America deal, Berkshire will buy $5 billion of preferred stock that will pay a 6 percent annual dividend. Mr. Buffett also will receive warrants for 700 million shares that he can exercise over the next 10 years. Bank of America has the option to buy back the preferred shares at any time for a 5 percent premium.

The deal is expected to close on Sept. 1, according to a regulatory filing.

It was the sort of move that many industry insiders had been expecting. In May, Morgan Stanley’s chief executive, James P. Gorman, told reporters at his firm’s annual meeting that a big-name investor was bound to jump into financials, prompting “the malaise to lift.”

Jason Goldberg, an analyst with Barclays, on Thursday commended Bank of America for being the one to nab the highly coveted “Buffett seal of approval.”

In the video below, Susanne Craig discusses Warren E. Buffett’s decision to invest $5 billion in Bank of America.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/buffetts-bank-of-america-stake-viewed-as-seal-of-approval/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Prescriptions Blog: Fast F.D.A. Approval of Melanoma Drug

The Food and Drug Administration approved an expensive new melanoma drug much faster than expected, giving a boost not only to that drug but also to other experimental products that may offer gene-based personalized medicine.

The F.D.A. approved vemurafenib, with the brand name Zelboraf, to treat patients with metastatic melanoma who have a certain genetic mutation called BRAF V600E. The drug inhibits the cancer-spreading action of that particular gene, which is held in about 50 percent of people who have metastatic melanoma.

The F.D.A. also approved a test for the genetic mutation.

Roche Holding said the drug would be available in about two weeks at a price of $9,800 a month. The drug will be sold by Genentech of San Francisco, a subsidiary of Roche of Switzerland, and Daiichi Sankyo of Japan.

Roche sought approval in May under an expedited review process for drugs that may offer major advances. The F.D.A. was expected to act by Oct. 28. Its approval came more than two months early — a vote of confidence by an agency that has been accused of failing to act promptly on some other drugs.

The fast action may portend well for crizotinib, a proposed lung cancer drug from Pfizer shown to be effective in the estimated 3 to 5 percent of non-small cell lung cancer patients whose tumors have a certain gene. That, too, was submitted with a diagnostic gene test. It is still under review.

In March, the F.D.A. approved another new drug for late-stage melanoma, called Yervoy, from Bristol-Myers Squibb. It acts on the immune system. Bristol-Myers Squibb charges $120,000 for a course of treatment.

Clinical trial results on the two drugs were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, to the acclaim of skin cancer doctors.

“This has been an important year for patients with late-stage melanoma,” Dr. Richard Pazdur, director of the F.D.A. Office of Oncology Drug Products, said in a press release on Wednesday.

But it is far from a cure.

“The F.D.A.’s quick action on this drug approval is important because it gives melanoma patients a new way to fight this deadly disease,” Timothy J. Turnham, executive director of the Melanoma Research Foundation, said in a statement. But many patients become resistant, he added, and the drug prolongs lives only months on average, pointing to the need for further research.

Side effects of Zelboraf may include joint pain, rash, hair loss, fatigue, nausea, skin sensitivity when exposed to the sun, and another skin-related cancer that can be managed with surgery.

Melanoma is the deadliest skin cancer. About 8,700 people died of it in the United States last year and 68,000 were newly diagnosed, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ad0c5085bd6fdc1250fee3416c1968ed

DealBook: Bank Analysts Shower Praise On LinkedIn

7:36 p.m. | Updated

LinkedIn’s stock is a long way from its first-day pop, when it traded above $100 a share. But its underwriters are feeling pretty optimistic about the Internet company.

On Tuesday, JPMorgan Chase, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Merrill Lynch all initiated coverage with bullish ratings on the social networking site. The price targets ranged from $85 to $92.

Amid the vote of confidence, shares of LinkedIn jumped more than 12 percent, to close at $85.56.

The banks — which had to wait several weeks from the initial public offering in May before publishing research — all offered rosy outlooks.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch weighed in with the most optimistic price target of $92, calling LinkedIn a “$10 billion long-term revenue opportunity.” Last year, the Internet company notched sales of $243 million.

Such strong expectations rest on their assessments of LinkedIn’s business model. UBS, which set a price target of $90, called LinkedIn “disruptive,” saying it would most likely record “better-than-expected growth in the user base, with corresponding revenue outperformance.” The social network’s lead underwriter, Morgan Stanley, which placed an overweight rating on stock, said LinkedIn could become a “standard utility” for recruiters.

“Every once in a while, a company comes around that transforms an industry in such a way that investors have difficulty grasping just how big it may one day become,” the Morgan Stanley note said. “We believe LinkedIn can be one of these companies.”

Douglas Anmuth of JPMorgan had similar praise. The analyst, who has an overweight rating on the stock and an $85 price target, said the Internet company was “disrupting both the online and offline job recruitment markets.” Given its leading position as a social network for professionals, he said, LinkedIn should also be able to capture a greater share of the $27 billion global market for staffing.

But Mr. Anmuth did temper his predictions. He cautioned that LinkedIn could be worth $60 a share if economic conditions deteriorated and the job market slowed.

Banks that did not participate in the I.P.O. offered the most subdued take on LinkedIn. Evercore Partners, which published a note earlier this month, initiated coverage with an equal-weight rating and a price target of $70. That’s roughly 18 percent below where the shares are trading now.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c0048b7a27f0ad6e04e50fdbb3afa6b1