image

June 11, 2008 7:41AM

Yahoo! Fights Back

By Elizabeth MacDonald

In an unusual disclosure, Yahoo sent a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that had details of a its company intranet  posting for employees on its internal Web site about its controversial severance plan it put in place less than two weeks after Microsoft’s bid for the company in January.The new severance plan could cost an acquirer up to $2.4 bn. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn now demands Yahoo! (YHOO) cancel the plan, which could be triggered if he succeeds in taking control of Yahoo!’s board. Details of the new plan came to light last week when a Delaware court unsealed documents in a Yahoo! shareholder lawsuit accusing the Internet giant of improperly trying to avoid a takeover.

The full exchange is noted below. Read between the lines of what Yahoo! is saying in its defense. Dissembling would be an understatement, some analysts suggest.

For example, it insists the plan is not designed to thwart a takeover. “The Plan is intended to help retain valued employees and preserve the value of Yahoo! during a period of uncertainty, without acting as a barrier to a Change in Control,” the company says in the FAQ. This, despite the fact that the lawsuit has documents outlining how Yahoo! adopted this plan to help stop an acquisition of the company by Microsoft (MSFT).

In particular, note Yahoo!’s stilted defense when it comes to the reaction of an outside consultant to the rich new severance plan. Yahoo! had hired Compensia, the outside compensation consultant, to review the change.

The lawsuit provides an actual email exchange dated February 5 between two Compensia executives. Compensia principal Michael Benkowitz emailed that “their [Yahoo!] latest proposal is to provide 100% equity acceleration for everyone,” to which his colleague Tim Sparks emailed back, “That’s nuts.”

Icahn has called the severance plan “reprehensible,” adding “now they [Yahoo! management] found a way to entrench themselves forever,” he said.

The plan would give as much as $2.4 bn in total severance benefits for employees who leave “for good reason” after a change of control, depending on their employment level. Usually top executives get full severance pay in a deal, not all employees, as incoming management seeks to seat its own top guns.

According to the new plan, employees would be allowed to quit “for good reason,” and get accelerated vesting of their stock and stock options as well as up to two years pay, depending on their level. Analysts say that is an invitation by Yahoo! to its employees to quit en masse if Microsoft buys the company.  

Microsoft said it had set aside $1.5 bn in its earlier bid just to cover an exodus.

In its defense, Yahoo! says the new plan could cost $514 mn or $845 mn instead.

It’s a suit I had told you about in a prior blog that Yahoo! had fought to keep sealed, (”Why Icahn Now Wants to Boot Yahoo!’s Jerry Yang”) as it was concerned it could damage the board’s efforts to repel a challenge by activist investor Icahn, (see my blogs “Why Yahoo! Can’t Go it Alone,” “Why Carl Icahn May Fail at Yahoo!”, and “Why Microsoft Should NOT Up its Bid for Yahoo!”).

The shareholder suit, which has evidently gotten hold of Yahoo!’s internal emails and records of phone conversations and internal meetings, alleges Yahoo! erected “roadblocks” to make a Yahoo! “acquisition less attractive” to Microsoft.

For the full filing, go to http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000089161808000305/f41347a4defa14a.htm

Selected excerpts are below:

Q&A for Change in Control Employee Severance Plans
June 10, 2008

Why has Yahoo! instituted the Plan?
…The Plan is intended to help us retain valued Yahoos during a period of uncertainty, maintain a stable work environment for our Yahoos and provide economic benefits to eligible employees in the event of potential job eliminations following a Change in Control.

Did Yahoo! adopt the Plan to thwart a deal with Microsoft? Does having a plan like this jeopardize a potential deal in any way? No. The Plan is intended to help retain valued employees and preserve the value of Yahoo! during a period of uncertainty, without acting as a barrier to a Change in Control. We believe retaining valued Yahoos would be consistent with any acquiror’s [sic] goals.

Mr. Icahn says this Plan costs $2.4 billion. Is that what it actually costs?
No. An estimate of the amount, if any, payable under the Plan requires making assumptions about unknown facts and variables…

Mr. Icahn quotes the $2.4 billion estimate, taken out of context, from a complaint filed in litigation against the company….No one believes that such an assumption is reasonable…the total payout would be $845 million or $514 million, assuming that 30% or 15% of the employees, respectively, are terminated without Cause or leave for Good Reason following a Change in Control.

Did Yahoo!’s compensation consultant say that the Plan is “nuts”?
No. As indicated above, estimating the cost of the Plan requires making a number of assumptions. Timothy J. Sparks, the president of Compensia, Yahoo!’s compensation consultant firm, explained in a sworn deposition that he used the word “nuts” to describe his opinion of using the assumption that 100 percent of Yahoo!’s employees would actually receive the severance benefits under the Plan to determine cost estimates. Mr. Sparks made clear in his deposition that his remark did not relate to the design or cost of the Plan.

Can the Board simply terminate or cancel the Plan now as suggested by Mr. Icahn?
No. Under the terms of the Plan, it cannot be terminated once a person has publicly announced the intention to take an action, which if consummated, would constitute a Change in Control until one month following the abandonment of the potential Change in Control. The actions covered include, among others, the announcement by any person of an intention to acquire the company as well as a proxy contest to take over a majority or more of the Board (such as that announced by Mr. Icahn). Accordingly, the Plan can’t currently be terminated or canceled. The Plan can be terminated one month following the abandonment of the actions creating a potential Change in Control.

What does “Good Reason” mean?
In general, an employee has Good Reason to resign if there is a substantial adverse alteration in the employee’s duties or responsibilities, a reduction in annual base salary or annual target bonus opportunity, a change in work location of more than 35 miles following a Change in Control, in each case compared to the employee’s employment terms immediately prior to a Change in Control. US employees should refer to section 1.13 of the Plan for the exact definition of “Good Reason”. Employees in other jurisdictions should refer to the definition of “Good Reason” in the country-specific employment subplan for your location.

Will all my equity awards, past and future, be accelerated if the double trigger occurs?
Yes. Any equity awards that have been granted prior to a Change in Control will be accelerated if following a Change in Control, the company terminates your employment without Cause or you resign for Good Reason, according to the terms of the Plan.

If I quit following a Change in Control, am I entitled to severance benefits under the Plan?
If you leave on your own terms following a Change in Control, you are not eligible for the severance benefits under the Plan. If you leave for Good Reason (as defined in the Plan) within two years following the date of a Change in Control, you will be eligible for severance benefits under the Plan.

If a new Board is elected, can the new Board repeal the Plan?
… the Plan stays in effect and cannot be modified (except as required by law or in a manner which is not adverse to eligible employees) or repealed for two years following the date of the election of the new Board.

Can an acquiror repeal this Plan?
The Plan is designed so that it cannot be changed in a manner adverse to employees, except as required to comply with law, as long as a potential Change in Control situation exists, and until two years after the Change in Control occurs.

If Yahoo! is acquired, will the new company honor my compensation arrangements?
The Plan does not affect the right of an acquiror to change compensation arrangements. However, under the terms of the Plan, if within two years of the Change in Control (i) your annual base salary is reduced or your target bonus opportunity is materially reduced and (ii) you resign your employment, then you would be entitled to resign for Good Reason and to receive severance benefits under the Plan.

 

6 Responses to “Yahoo! Fights Back”

  1. Comment by smartypants

    How noble are the Yahoo-ligans that they would not ever take a two year paid vacation unless it was really, really bad for them after the change! After all, they could not, say, take the money and run and even get another job if they chose or spend a couple years bumming around Europe…

    How stupid does Mr. Yang think that the (even non-pro) investment community is? This plan is a great attempt to thwart any possible takeover but should not be allowed to stand. Self-preservation of the CEO and the Board of Directors, along with what can only be called an insane severance plan for the masses, should not protect people who have led the company to be in a place where someone elses could clearly make better calls and provide more benefit to market.

    Mr. Yang, if you want to retain full control, DON’T GO PUBLIC. Once you do, the rules of the game change and you’re no longer the big dog- the stockholders are and their best interests, not yours, should drive the decisions for Yahoo’s future.

  2. Comment by Greg

    Cheers to Jerry and all the inexperienced leaders for realizing the employees were the most valuable part of the company.

  3. Comment by Drew

    It seems Microsoft needs this deal more than Yahoo, and if Carl Icahn is so eager to be apart of Microsoft sell you shares in Yahoo and go marry Billy boy Gates.

  4. Comment by cory

    Thanks for putting in references to other blog posts of yours on the same subject (”(see my blogs “Why Yahoo! Can’t Go it Alone,” “Why Carl Icahn May Fail at Yahoo!”, and “Why Microsoft Should NOT Up its Bid for Yahoo!”)”) Too bad there isn’t some way to allow a reader to automatically navigate away from one blog post and onto another one, maybe by clicking on a link. And maybe that link could be underlined, or highlighted in a bold color, so as to stand out from the surrounding text.

    I think I’m on to something, need to go file a patent before someone beats me to it.

  5. Comment by DrDetroit

    Only because I’ve been saying from the beginning, that Microsoft is not a fit for Yahoo, and Google is, trying not to step in the useless rhetoric on ALL that speculation regarding Microsoft and Yahoo ?

    I now can say - Go look at the new marriage of Google and Yahoo.

    Try to stay sane and sensible folks. This one was easy to spot.

    I forget which yayhoo article here someone went after DrDetroit on how insane a union of Yahoo and Google was, I guess it was sane enough they actually did it.

    Yahoo and Google are kind of like CountryWide and Bank of America, I’ll let you people figure who’s who - on the contrary, BoA has permission to use CW’s banking unit as they see fit, mission accomplished if you ask me to escape the 10% legal hold on deposit accounts.

    Now, if Bank of America semi-unjustly skates around the 10% law - one should ask - is it because the FDIC’s approximately 50 billion wouldn’t be enough to cover any losses at the track ? or ? well, just imagine the worst case scenario of Bank of America made transparent its capital resources via deposit accounts only to go belly up, #1 that it’s called ‘The Bank of America’ would be icing, #2, that Tommy Franks - the guy who started the whole war on terror- cut and ran to join the board of directors for Bank of America (I guess he forgot there was a war he started, 5 months at the Bush ranch planning shock and awe and then - off to Bank of America)- would be involved in the nations largest financial institution crash, and #3 - that Larry Di Rita, head spokesperson under Rumsfeld also the architect for the term ‘War on Terror’ ALSO jumped ship from the war on terror to becoming BoA’s sr. spokesperson - and that HE’D be involved in the largest financial institutional crash in US history.

    Hmm - And let’s see - CountryWide brings 100 Billion in red ink to BoA.

    I ’suppose’ Abu Dhabi might be able to drop a little chicken scratch and go 10x on what they did for Citi - and put 100 Billion down to save BoA.

    Liz MacDonald is right about Dubious data, I like to say DUBAIous data.

    More so though, something isn’t right with all this Fox News used to prop up CountryWide ads (Fox News was #1 promoter of CountryWide and DiTech - You’ve got the green light BABY !)- in between the ads encouraging you to go spend like there is no tomorrow, why ? it’s stories telling you there is no tomorrow and that the terrorists will get you in the end.

    Something doesn’t smell right.

    I feel like Spinal Tap’s Smell the Glove album cover (the second one, that’s just all black) is the appropriate visual metaphor here.

    Mark my words, BoA comes down into the crosshairs after WaMu- Wachovia (CountryWide was saved in a bizarre way) make their BS’ish (Bear Stearns - new meaning to the acronym) weekend announcements in the near future.

  6. Comment by DrDetroit

    IS this a bad dream ? That the Bank of America’s problems really ARE country wide ?

    as in spread wide across the country ?

    You want to see something scary - check out WaMu’s ads on TV lately -

    Not only free checking, free checks - banks NEVER give up the cheap subtle charges -

    I’d say if we see WaMu or Wachovia start to offer no Non-Sufficient Fund Fee’s (NSF’s) on the first 5 bad checks, we can more or less guess that they are in such trouble to gain capital, they’re willing to lie to themselves even.

    Funny, when a client at a bank has insufficient funds, they get charged $32 to $38 - but when a bank has insufficient funds, it’s a write down.

    I think if I ever see an NSF in my life, I’ll call the bank and ask them if I could just call it a write down, and keep a happy face and just pretend everything is all going to be okay so long as I persist denial and watch the Stepford Wives every night to remind myself that maybe the 1970’s were a better ride than 2000-2010 ?

    Uh, I don’t think so. I don’t think they’ll buy it either.

    So, what’s the dark side of a write down eh ?

    You bet it’s real, and you bet it’s a true loss, I don’t buy into this smile - be happy - the market will promote itself based on attitude alone, no, there are over 6 trillion in losses totaled from housing yet to be sorted out, that’s 1/2 of the entire US real estate sector - who’s even covering that ?

    And by cover, I mean media, not even who picks up the tab at Happy Hour for America.

    My god - what kind of message is it to promote liqour and denial ? Cheers for day traders ? Without Sam and Dianne, and Cliff and Norm ? And Carla ? I’d say Happy Hour is on par with what happens when people get hooked on Benzo’s- the Xanax crowd, USA’s #1 most prescribed drug. Have a drink (but never on the air), take a pill, be happy, the Mexican’s will do all the work in the end, make that trade, push that button harder or faster - fill up the black SUV escalade tank and make those plans for the 3rd vacation of the year ! Life is grand, smile, be happy, there is no suffering, no loss, 4.5 billion people making $2 or less a day are clueless as to how to derive a quality meaningful experience in life - when in doubt, watch the Happy Hour re-runs paired with Cavuto’s reruns presented as if it’s live.

Close
E-mail It