Skip to comments.Hanky panky in sale of Boston Globe? (Took price cut to deny sale to conservatives, perhaps)
Posted on 08/05/2013 5:36:19 AM PDT by Zakeet
The New York Times Company may be facing some serious scrutiny over its planned sale of the Boston Globe to Boston Red Sox owner John Henry for a mere $70 million, after having paid $1.1 billion in 1993. The owner of the San Diego Union-Tribune, Douglas Manchester, is alleging that his higher bid was rejected by the company. John Lynch of the Boston Herald writes:
A losing Boston Globe contender is claiming his San Diego media company outbid Red Sox owner John Henry - and would have gone even higher - a bombshell allegation that he says could delay the deal and leave the New York Times Co. open to shareholder backlash.
"We bid significantly more than Henry," said John Lynch, the CEO of U-T San Diego, one of the Globe finalists. ... I'm just stunned. I thought this was a public company that had a fiduciary duty to get the most by its stockholders. ... From the beginning, I don't think they wanted to sell to us."
The potential trouble here for the New York Times Company would be its fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Even though the company has two classes of shareholders, with the shares owned by Sulzberger family members controlling the board of directors, the other shareholders are entitled to realize the highest price available for the assets the company is selling.
Doug Manchester is reviled in the journalism world for having bought the U-T and turned it in a conservative direction. If it could be shown that the NYTCO turned down a higher bid in order to prevent the Globe for falling into the hands of a conservative bidder, that could open the door to a shareholder lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
We have never been in this business to maximize shareholder value ... as you can tell by our radical leftist editorial slant and out uncanny ability to lose vast sums of money!
Hang around a year or two....if it stays liberal you can get it even cheaper!!!!
I thought this was a public company that had a fiduciary duty to get the most by its stockholders.
Any unhappy shareholder would be quickly bought out by the ruling NYT family...
Who are the NYT’s biggest advertisers? They need to be boycotted.
NYT - Spreading the misery amongst its shareholders!
Not surprising. NYT 1.1 billion dollars was ill gotten gains it got from lying to the American public. It’s not like they earnestly worked hard for that money. This is why Leftists have no respect for anything including themselves.
How is the San Diego paper doing profit-wise? Is it really conservative?
Well, here in Pittsburgh we had a newspaper owner run the baseball team into the ground. So perhaps that works in the opposite direction as well.
Boston already has a conservative paper, the Boston Herald, and doing much better than the Globe.
I can’t see any transformation of the Globe becoming more “balanced” that would bring back the readership they squandered.
One thing I haven’t seen in the reporting — a side-by-side of the Herald’s business profile over the last 20 years, compared to the Globe’s. It would be instructive.
One reason to never buy stock in a company that has a multi-class ownership structure where the corporate control is retained by the minority shareholders because they own a different class of stock with more voting power. If the owners don't control the company then the owners are being scammed by those who control the company.
So no class action by the shareholders for this? There are class actions for EVERYTHING else re company mistakes.
This is more proof of how much the New York Times hates conservatives... They’re rather lose money and screw their shareholders than let a conservative newspaper exist...
I pray John Lynch will sue these people if he feels that’s the right path... and if not that he buys the paper in a few years for 90% less than he’s offering now.