Lord Black declines to testify at SEC hearing

UK Telegraph ^ | 22/12/2003 | Neil Collins, City Editor

[Liz]

Lord Black, the chairman of Hollinger International, is expected to decline to testify in front of the Securities & Exchange Commission today.

The hearing into the corporate governance of the New York-listed company is held in camera and was Lord Black's first opportunity to explain the "non-compete" payments and other matters relating to the company, which owns The Telegraph. However, according to sources familiar with the situation, it has simply not been possible to assemble all the information that the SEC might need.

Lord Black's advisers asked the SEC if the hearing could be postponed for a few weeks, and when that was denied, they asked if he could appear informally, rather than testifying on oath. That was also denied. His advisers had pointed out that, given the complexity of the case, he could not be expected to give a full and proper testimony.

Last month Lord Black "retired" as chief executive of Hollinger International. He remains chairman of the company and of Hollinger Inc, the Canadian company that has voting control of Hollinger International.

Hollinger International has appointed Lazard, the investment bank, to advise on how to deal with a number of threats to the company. The bank, which is expected to report to the board early next year, had been asked to consider the possibility of asset sales, including that of The Telegraph.

Hollinger is facing legal action from Tweedy Browne relating to the "non-compete" payments made to some Hollinger directors, including Lord Black, following various sales of newspaper and magazine interests in North America.

Christopher Browne, managing director of Tweedy Browne, wrote in the Financial Times of December 11: "Our questions are mostly ones any director of a public company should be able to answer. Why did the board allow Lord Black and his associates to pocket $73m in non-compete agreements - agreements that are, as far as we know, unique in American business."

The SEC's inquiry follows this legal action. Last night a spokesman for Lord Black declined to comment.

[Liz]

Christopher Browne, managing director of Tweedy Browne, wrote in the Financial Times of December 11: "Our questions are mostly ones any director of a public company should be able to answer. Why did the board allow Lord Black and his associates to pocket $73m in non-compete agreements - agreements that are, as far as we know, unique in American business."

So I guess we're not going to get the answers (/sarcasm).

[Liz]

ping

[Grampa Dave]

This little action could be like The $oddomite's briefcase when it comes to Corporate Boards.

[Liz]

I'm all ears. How 'bout you?

[Grampa Dave]

The results of this action will be so subtle,we will not even see what the responses will be by boards across America.

Right now the lawyers for the boards and the board member's individual lawyers behind closed doors are warning the member's that they can no longer allow this type of looting to go unchecked.

This will mean better run companies and higher dividends instead of writing books about liberal presidents like FDR.

[Liz]

We're are witnessing the corrupt Clinton Legacy going down in flames.

[Grampa Dave]

Sometimes, the Clintoonian legacy just sinks silently into the quagmire left by the Clintoons.

Like their beloved no dividends nor capital gains on stocks, legacy!

That is sinking slowy into the Rat Cess Pool. In the meantime many corporations and mutual fund companies are declaring dividends for the first time in a long time or declaring substantial dividends versus token ones.

For example here is the list of Fidelity Funds. There are some even better dividends and other gains declared by other funds that we have bought via Fidelity.

http://personal.fidelity.com/planning/tax/distributions/yearend.shtml.cvsr

Vanguard is doing better but far from the dividends put out by the Fidelity Funds. I love to pit these two companies together. I sent Van Guard the link to the Fidelity dividends and ask why they had lower and less dividends on most of their funds with no better or often worse returns in the same categories. No response yet!

The return of dividends is just another spin off of GW's tax plan.

I have sent emails to 4 fund managers, that if their dividends are puny or zero, this year, they will be history with us in 2004, as their funds performance is not that good when compared to others in their peer group. This puts pressure on them to eliminate ownership in PC lib companies which don't like to declare a decent dividend.