One of Yahoo’s biggest problems — brain drain — has turned out to be an asset for private equity firms and other players interested in figuring out their best moves related to the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

A plethora of ex-Yahoos, including many former top execs, are getting buttonholed by those who want to know more about the inner workings of the company that might not be obvious from its copious financial data available publicly.

That includes former Americas head Hilary Schneider, who has a longer-term consulting gig with TPG Capital, one of the several PE firms that has recently signed a non-disclosure agreement with Yahoo; former COO and President Sue Decker, who has had a longtime informal relationship with Blackstone, which has not signed the NDA and has been in talks with Yahoo’s Asian partners, China’s Alibaba Group and Japan’s SoftBank; and even former CEO Carol Bartz, who sources say has also been contacted to get her insights.

She is one of many in that regard, in a large pool of former Yahoos, such as: LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner, who had run Yahoo’s media efforts; Chegg CEO Dan Rosensweig, former Yahoo COO; SurveyMonkey CEO Dave Goldberg, who ran swathes of Yahoo’s entertainment properties; Criteo CEO Greg Coleman, former Yahoo sales head; former CEO Terry Semel, who is now an investor; former communications exec Brad Garlinghouse, who is now at AOL; and Demand Media Chief Revenue Officer Joanne Bradford, who also was a top Yahoo advertising exec.

Not all are cooperating with the requests for a chitchat about Yahoo, but there is much incoming interest in ex-Yahoos and what they might know.

There’s lots more where that came from, from all parts and all levels of Yahoo, given the breadth of the exes now doing very well — thank you very much — throughout the tech and media industries.

Thus, calls from PE firms, from Silver Lake to Bain Capital to Providence Equity Partners, as well as interest from major and majorly irritated shareholders, such as activist hedge fund investor Dan Loeb.

It’s a smart idea to tap this rich vein of information, as all contemplate possible multi-billion-dollar investments.

While some of these execs have not worked at Yahoo in many years, all have significant knowledge about the challenges and also the culture that cannot be gleaned from spreadsheets.

They also know a lot about the internal politics and personalities of the existing inside players, too. More importantly, several were involved in similar previous major business decisions at Yahoo.

Decker, for example, was a key exec in the Yahoo takeover attempt by Microsoft several years ago; Schneider and Bartz were deeply involved in striking the advertising and search partnership with Microsoft.

“Between everyone, it’s a good way to figure out where all the bodies are buried,” said one person close to the situation. “And there are a lot of bodies.”

Maybe get something cooking in the whole what-will-Yahoo-do stakes, now that one of Yahoo’s more active board members is back.

And by “back,” I mean that Kenny — no longer a candidate for CEO — has no further need to recuse himself from the strategic process in which the Silicon Valley Internet company finds itself.

In an interview with Advertising Age last week, Kenny — the well-regarded online ad exec who recently stepped down as president of network infrastructure giant Akamai — released an unusual statement:

As a matter of policy, I do not comment on matters related to Yahoo as a Yahoo director. However, as a personal matter, I want to clarify that I believe Yahoo is a great company with enormous potential, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for the CEO position. I look forward to my continued service on the Yahoo Board of Directors.”

By removing himself from the fray, that means, according to several sources, that Kenny will be diving back into sleeve-rolling duties at Yahoo, as one of its — how can I put this? — less comatose board members.

In fact — until he was sidelined by the obvious conflict of interest inherent in wanting to be CEO, while also directing the fate of Yahoo for shareholder value — Kenny had been deeply involved in a lot of the changes that had taken place of late, after a long period of board inaction.

That included the ouster of CEO Carol Bartz, who was fired for a number of reasons, including lack of strategic vision. It was relatively new board member Kenny — he became a director in February — who led the strategy committee that had asked Bartz for her road map, which she did not deliver to their liking. Obviously.

Because of the swirl around his possible CEO candidacy — Kenny was a noticeable inside candidate, since he is well known in the Internet advertising world for running and then selling Digitas to the Publicis Groupe for $1.3 billion in 2006 — he gave up leadership of the committee to Intuit President Brad Smith.

Sources said it is unlikely Kenny will get that top job back, but he remains a member of the transactions committee, which is leading the strategic review of the company.

That’s the key slot for the independent board members of Yahoo, who must ultimately be the ones to determine what path or offer the company will take.

One plus: Kenny has close relationships with most of the bidders — largely private equity firms — looking at Yahoo, and also is well known among the media and tech companies poking around, too. He also has advertising — and now tech — experience, which will be much needed as Yahoo explores its options.

Most importantly, Kenny is an independent director, which will be very important to the process going forward, especially since a lot of the spotlight has fallen on Yahoo co-founder and director Jerry Yang.

Yang — who has been a bit of a Yahoo lightning rod at times — has been involved in some of the meetings with those interested, along with interim CEO Tim Morse. The company recently noted that this was at the behest of the board.

While these were only informational meetings so far — and not negotiations, as some reports have surmised — Yang’s involvement will likely have to be more curtailed, at least publicly, especially if any of the deals include using his own large stake in Yahoo.

“This process has to be above board, since it is so easy for those wanting a better deal to try to cause all kinds of trouble,” said one source. “The company is already under attack in that regard.”

That’s a reference to a recent salvo by hedge fund activist Dan Loeb, a major Yahoo shareholder who has taken aim at the board and, last week, at Yang. Loeb essentially accused Yang of double-dealing in the process.

Enter Kenny, along with Smith and — to an increasingly lesser extent, of late — Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock. While there are other independent board members involved, these are the three to watch most closely now.

While some think Kenny still would like to be CEO of Yahoo — he was also on the short list several years ago when Bartz was hired — sources said he is more likely to take a job at another consumer Internet company.

While he certainly could slot into a large advertising firm or into the digital division of a big media concern, sources said Kenny is looking to be a CEO.

Just not at Yahoo.

At least for now, since down the road it is unclear what will become of Yahoo and who will run it in years to come.

In fact, it might even be Kenny in the end.

Third Point’s Daniel Loeb — the smack-tastic hedge fund manager who has bought up a 5.23 percent stake in the Silicon Valley Internet giant and has been hitting some of Yahoo’s board upside the head with those shares ever since — is now taking aim at its co-founder and director Jerry Yang. Loeb wants him to step down as a director due to conflict of interest.

Loeb also reiterated his threat of a proxy fight to get control of the board. In fact, sources in Silicon Valley said he has already been reaching out to potential alternative board members.

In a previous 13-D filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Loeb had backed Yang against Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock.

But that’s all over. Reports have surfaced that Yang has been trying to get a private equity firm to back a plan that would keep him and current management in charge of the company.

In a new letter to the Yahoo board today, Loeb said that Yang’s attempt amounts to cronyism and self-dealing.

Wrote Loeb, in part:

We are deeply concerned by news reports that you are considering a leveraged recapitalization that will allow private equity firms to gain substantial equity positions that will, when combined with Jerry Yang’s and David Filo’s ownership, effectively establish a controlling position in Yahoo. More troubling are reports that Mr. Yang is engaging in one-off discussions with private equity firms, presumably because it is in his best personal interests to do so. The Board and the Strategic Committee should not have permitted Mr. Yang to engage in these discussions, particularly given his ineptitude in dealing with the Microsoft negotiations to purchase the Company in 2008; it is now clear that he is simply not aligned with shareholders. At a bare minimum, Mr. Yang must declare whether he is a buyer or a seller — he cannot be both. If we are correct and he is effectively a buyer, corporate ethics require him to recuse himself from any further discussions on behalf of the Company. He should also be requested by the Company to promptly leave the Board and join Mr. Filo in solely an operating capacity.

Loeb is also demanding two seats on the board; in fact, the ones he hopes will be vacated by Bostock and Yang.

While it is likely the Yahoo board will try to minimize the Loeb letter, which is below in its entirety, other shareholders hold the same opinion of the prospects of the same-old-same-old staying on at Yahoo.

“Nothing can excuse such an action, and shareholders will not be bought off with a dividend of our own money while value is destroyed,” wrote Loeb, channeling a lot of others I have spoken to about a Yang insider deal.

Here is the full letter, Yahoo’s tiresomely typical (and borderline fibbish — but I will get to that later) rejoinder, as well the the new 13-D filing by Loeb:

Third Point LLC Letter to Yahoo! Inc. Board of Directors

NEW YORK — (BUSINESS WIRE) — Third Point Requests Two Yahoo Board Seats, Demands Yang’s Resignation from Board, and Opposes Reported Negotiations for “Sweetheart” Deal with Private Equity Firms

About Third Point LLC: Third Point is an investment firm headquartered in New York, managing $8.0 billion in assets, including a London Stock Exchange listed closed-end fund. Founded in 1995, Third Point follows an event-driven approach to investing globally.

Board of Directors
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Dear Members of the Board of Directors:

As you are aware, Third Point LLC (“Third Point”) manages investment funds that are, collectively, the second largest shareholder of Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo” or the “Company”).

We are deeply concerned by news reports that you are considering a leveraged recapitalization that will allow private equity firms to gain substantial equity positions that will, when combined with Jerry Yang’s and David Filo’s ownership, effectively establish a controlling position in Yahoo. More troubling are reports that Mr. Yang is engaging in one-off discussions with private equity firms, presumably because it is in his best personal interests to do so. The Board and the Strategic Committee should not have permitted Mr. Yang to engage in these discussions, particularly given his ineptitude in dealing with the Microsoft negotiations to purchase the Company in 2008; it is now clear that he is simply not aligned with shareholders. At a bare minimum, Mr. Yang must declare whether he is a buyer or a seller — he cannot be both. If we are correct and he is effectively a buyer, corporate ethics require him to recuse himself from any further discussions on behalf of the Company. He should also be requested by the Company to promptly leave the Board and join Mr. Filo in solely an operating capacity.

In our view, a leveraged recapitalization makes no sense and its only purpose would be to put substantial equity stakes into friendly hands to entrench management and transfer effective control without payment of a premium or even, it appears, a shareholder vote. Nothing can excuse such an action, and shareholders will not be bought off with a dividend of our own money while value is destroyed.

Moreover, such a transaction would undermine the basic tenets of free markets, including democratic voting, accountability and fairness. We do not blame our friends at the private equity firms rumored to be involved for trying to get the best deal possible for their investors; we have great respect for these firms and their leaders — Jim Coulter of Texas Pacific Group, Jonathan Nelson of Providence Equity Partners, Glenn Hutchins of Silver Lake, Henry Kravis of KKR and Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone. However, we at Third Point are also in the value-maximizing business. We will not tolerate any transaction which appropriates for insiders opportunities that duly belong to current Yahoo shareholders. However, we would welcome the prospect of any of these firms’ presence on a reconstituted Yahoo Board of Directors and work on a long-term strategy for the Company should it be necessary for us to pursue a proxy contest next year.

If you, as board members, undertake the current course of action, Third Point will hold you personally responsible for such a flagrant violation of your duty of loyalty. Any transaction with a third party who assists members of management and the board in protecting their jobs, and/or involves the effective sale or transfer of control without payment of a control premium, will likewise be subject to scrutiny.

Given the Board’s inability — or perhaps unwillingness — to properly solicit true strategic alternative bids, let alone to negotiate them, Third Point demands that we be awarded two board seats — those created by the vacancies of Chairman Bostock and Mr. Yang, or two newly-created ones. We are prepared to assume these positions immediately.

Sincerely,

Daniel S. Loeb
Chief Executive Officer
Third Point LLC
390 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022

Yahoo’s Board of Directors’ objective is, and always has been, to serve the best interests of all the company’s shareholders. The Board’s comprehensive strategic review is being properly managed for the benefit of all shareholders and is guided by outside counsel for the independent directors and investment bankers retained separately by the Board. The Board of Directors (eight independents and Mr. Yang) controls the strategic review process and has directed its Transactions and Strategic Planning Committee (comprised of four independent directors) to manage the process day-to-day and report regularly to the Board.

News reports based on rumor and speculation are just that. The Board’s comprehensive strategic review process is still underway, with a wide range of options under active consideration. We can assure all Yahoo shareholders that whatever the outcome of the strategic review process may be, it will serve the best interests of all the company’s shareholders.

Mr. Yang is one of 9 directors with the exact same fiduciary duties and motivation as all of his fellow directors — to serve the best interests of all the company’s shareholders. The Board and the Transactions and Strategic Planning Committee initiate, direct, and oversee any work Mr. Yang undertakes in relation to the strategic review process.

YHOO-20111104-SC13DA-0

Do sale rumors make a troubled asset more attractive? Yes — except when more rumors (that those sales rumors might not be true) appear.

Welcome to just another day in the life of Yahoo, which saw its shares drop more than 5.5 percent today. Its stock declined almost a dollar to close at $15.64, after it was reported by various news orgs that Yahoo might be leaning toward no sale and a shareholder dividend, and toward taking control of its own sale of its lucrative Asian assets.

That was counter to the news — from a number of the very same outlets — touting a variety of ever more elaborate and sometimes breathless sale scenarios last week, featuring various configurations of Microsoft, Google and private equity firms like Silver Lake and others.

Silver Lake, in fact, appears to be the most aggressive in the possible bidding for all or parts of Yahoo, and has been noodling such a deal most intently, and for a long time now.

It makes sense, given that Silver Lake was successful in a vaguely similar deal that ultimately saved the Internet telephony service Skype, which it eventually peddled at a high price to Microsoft.

In fact, according to several sources, Yahoo director and co-founder Jerry Yang — also a former CEO of the company, who appears to have seized the ball firmly in the strategy game — met with Silver Lake today for an unspecified little chitchat.

That said, one source told me, “what is deeply uncertain is whether Silver Lake will do something at all.”

This is par for the course in this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink drama. Because — although it makes for a boring post, and the back and forth throat-clearing before an actual event might be entertaining — so far, not very much is actually happening as yet at Yahoo, with regard to its variety of options.

Of course, this could change in an hour. Or tomorrow, or the next day. Most of all, it’s clear that Yahoo’s board has to move in some significant way before the end of the year.

So, yes, the Silicon Valley Internet giant is doing all the sales-oriented stuff it should do with its coterie of pricey bankers (presumably being paid by the hour).

Yes, it has recently hired a talent-search firm, which is eyeing the landscape to find a willing CEO. (Even more adviser costs!)

And, yes, it is still wrangling with its Asian partners — Alibaba Group and SoftBank — over how to do a tax-free transaction (you’d think from all the sweating over it that this deal was harder to solve than the European debt crisis).

And, on schedule, activist shareholders — like hedge-fund agitator Dan Loeb of Third Point — should be attacking again soon, until a deal is done.

But according to many sources both inside and outside Yahoo, what’s happening is pretty much business as usual for this Hamlet of a company, which is lugubriously debating and weighing and pondering its fate.

I suppose it should, given the importance of it all, except it is a conundrum that has been going on for far too long at Yahoo, and under a number of different leaders.

In other words, it’s like “As the World Turns,” except with some new characters and a whole lot more amnesia.

But the slowness of a very real process is also causing deep frustration with all those dealing with Yahoo now — including possible bidders, and definitely its Asian partners.

Their gripes — which are louder than in most deals — are not surprising: They refuse to sign a too-onerous NDA to look at Yahoo’s books; there’s an irksome tone of indecision on the part of the company’s board; and, as always, the incessant leaks about all of this and more are making it worse.

One bidder has likened the company to a “melting iceberg that has a lot less time than the planet has to put its house in order.”

Another bemoaned the variety of trial balloons being floated, and noted that no movement was what Yahoo seems to do best.

That’s not exactly true, of course, so expect to see more leaks about plots and plans and meetings.

But no matter what you hear, keep in mind that having Yahoo’s fate being spun about like a top on a daily basis on Wall Street and in the media is not good for the company itself — or for its employees and shareholders.

Since it makes me dizzy — even though I like a good scoop as much as the next reporter — that’s the reason I have largely stuck to reporting about the actual internal turmoil inside Yahoo, from poor employee morale to various staff rejiggerings to more relentless brain drain.

Because while everyone fiddles, Yahoo’s real prospects of maintaining its core business melt a little bit more every day.

Yahoo is on its third CEO in four years, it has lost advertising momentum to Google and Facebook, its engagement levels are dangerously slowing, its social and mobile strategies are unclear and even its powerful email product is under siege.

And in the end, it is only these things that will matter to whoever runs the company in the end.

[Photo from Mat Honan's fantastic tweet here.]

And you thought former Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz could lay into the Yahoo board with some zingers, including the not-used-enough “doofuses” insult.

Time to meet Third Point’s Daniel Loeb, the smack-tastic hedge fund manager who has bought up a 5.1 percent stake in the Silicon Valley Internet giant and has been hitting the company upside the head with those shares since last week, on a seemingly daily basis.

Actually, twice yesterday — in a morning letter he filed with regulators, and then at an afternoon investor conference.

After trying to entice Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang into throwing Chairman Roy Bostock under the bus, and noting in the letter that Bostock hung up on him in a recent phone call, Loeb told the attendees at the Delivering Alpha conference in New York that “no one wants to work with these clowns on the [Yahoo] board.”

Also that “Yahoo had one of the most horrendous management teams” that Loeb had “seen in 16 years.”

Also that Yahoo “has the same crappy interface and the same stupid logo” since 2004.

Other than that, Mr. Loeb, how is the Internet site?

Here is Loeb’s latest filing to see for yourself:

loebsec

A range of major players interested in acquiring all or a large piece of Yahoo have been prepping possible bids and have been in touch with the Internet giant’s board over the last several days.

While Yahoo has publicly said it was not for sale, according to numerous sources both inside and outside the company, it has been receptive to the interest and its Chairman Roy Bostock and Co-founder Jerry Yang have spoken to several.

Among the possible players: Silicon Valley venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, which is working with private equity firm Silver Lake, in a deal that also might include Russia’s DST Global and Yahoo’s Japanese partner Masa Son; former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin, who is partnered with Providence Equity Partners; and the possibility that Yahoo’s Chinese partner, Alibaba Group, might consider entering the fray in what could be a reverse merger of sorts.

Also being rung up by some of the parties: Microsoft — Yahoo’s advertising and search partner — which is being seen as a possibly moneybags in any deal.

The movement among these investors is against a backdrop of increasing pressure for Yahoo’s board, after it fired CEO Carol Bartz last week. In the wake of the dramatic move, shareholders have upped criticism of Bostock and the board and have been looking hard for alternatives.

Today, that included hedge fund investor Daniel Loeb of Third Point, which has a 5.1 percent stake in Yahoo. In a filing this morning, he said he might increase that amount, and described a testy hour-long phone call he had earlier this week with Bostock that ended abruptly with a hang-up from Yahoo.

Sources said Loeb called Bostock a “fool,” among other not-so-nice names, on the call and asked for Yang’s help in dumping him.

This comes as exactly no surprise, given his previously strong letter in which Loeb called for Bostock’s ouster.

Loeb has been calling out Bostock — who is also on the boards of Morgan Stanley and Delta Airlines — for a series of gaffes at Yahoo since he became chairman in 2008 (he’s been on the board since 2003).

Those have included: Yahoo’s bungled effort to stave off a takeover by Microsoft several years ago; the too-long enthusiasm for Bartz, who was hired in early 2009 and fired last week; sitting unusually still as competitors such as Facebook, Google and more have out-innovated and outgrown Yahoo; and, of course, the falling knife of a stock, which has dropped precipitously since Bostock has been in charge of the board.

As Loeb wrote in a letter he sent to the company last week:

“It is time that certain members of this Board were held accountable for its past failures and their individual roles. Accordingly, we insist that Mr. Bostock, who championed Ms. Bartz’s hiring and led the charge against the Microsoft deal, promptly resign from the Board.”

Loeb is likely to add to that later today at a high-profile investor conference in New York, where the colorful but tough-talking investor is sure to add more logs to the fire.

But it not only him. Other major shareholders of Yahoo are also in touch with possible outside buyers, seeking a change at the long-troubled company, after its shares have remained in the doldrums, its attrition rate of employees has spiked and its product pipeline has slowed to drip.

This has all been taking place — of course — during one of tech biggest and most innovative booms, in which Yahoo competitors have grown strongly.

Enter Marc Andreessen, the well-known entrepreneur who has transformed himself into one of Silicon Valley’s most powerful venture capitalists.

He and his partner Ben Horowitz recently pulled off another similar deal — with Silver Lake — to take control of a then-troubled Skype. They later flipped it to Microsoft for a large return.

Sources familiar with the situation said the pair have become increasingly intrigued by the situation at Yahoo and believe that its assets and brand are still strong, despite its management turmoil in recent years.

One problem is the huge cost of almost any kind of takeover and also the complexity, given much of Yahoo’s $18.5 billion valuation is due to its Asian assets.

The sale of those shares, as well as the selling off of some of Yahoo’s less core properties, makes for a very complicated situation for anyone.

Said one person looking at the company: “It is one of the more massive hairballs around.”

That is a common sentiment among many of those looking at Yahoo, which has hired Allen & Co. to manage the process.

Also of worry is a bid that would include too many players. Yahoo has long been plagued by indecisiveness on the part of its execs and, mostly, its board.

But one thing all the possible buyers of Yahoo, as well as an increasing number of its shareholders, agree on: The Yahoo board needs a major shake-up.

As Loeb wrote last week, which many I interviewed also echoed:

“This letter details our principled demands for sweeping changes in both the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and Company leadership, and outlines the hidden value of Yahoo, which has been severely damaged — but not irreparably — by poor management and governance.”

The Yahoo board will be meeting in Silicon Valley tomorrow to discuss a wide range of worrisome issues facing the troubled Internet giant.

Meanwhile, several sources said, even more private equity investors are weighing making major investments in the company, all pretty much aimed at ousting said directors.

So far, that has only been Third Point’s Daniel Loeb, whose massive hedge fund now owns 5.1 percent of Yahoo.

Loeb appears tomorrow at the high-profile Delivering Alpha investor conference in New York at 2 pm PT, where he is expected to take another swing at Yahoo’s board.

His next moves, sources said, could include buying up more shares to put the pressure on and also presenting his own alternate slate of directors, much as activist investor Carl Icahn did several years ago at Yahoo.

Translation: Forget AOL’s CrunchGate — this is big-boy corporate battling!

Add that to the pile on Yahoo’s board meeting agenda, along with some other critical issues that include: Outlining the criteria for any CEO candidate and a discussion of headhunting firms to hire; a review of strategic alternatives, including a presentation by its investment advisors, Allen & Co.; and how to stabilize the company and reassure its dusting-off-their-resumes employees.

Finding answers to these questions is going to be difficult enough, but the ever increasing pressure from outside investors is going to make it even harder.

Some definite tire-kickers reportedly looking at a bid include Providence Equity Partners, Silver Lake, Blackstone, Texas Pacific Group and even KKR.

While KKR has reportedly close ties with Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock, he is now the main target for pretty much everyone else.

That includes Loeb, as well as other major Yahoo shareholders.

That’s no surprise: Bostock, who is also on the boards of Morgan Stanley and Delta Airlines, has presided over a series of gaffes at Yahoo since he became chairman in 2008 (he’s been on the board since 2003).

Those have included: Yahoo’s bungled effort to stave off a takeover by Microsoft several years ago; the too-long enthusiasm for CEO Carol Bartz, who was hired in early 2009 and fired last week; sitting unusually still as competitors such as Facebook, Google and more have out-innovated and outgrown Yahoo; and, of course, the falling knife of a stock, which has dropped precipitously since Bostock has been in charge of the board.

As Loeb wrote in a letter he sent to the company:

“It is time that certain members of this Board were held accountable for its past failures and their individual roles. Accordingly, we insist that Mr. Bostock, who championed Ms. Bartz’s hiring and led the charge against the Microsoft deal, promptly resign from the Board.”

Said another source with knowledge of the situation: “Under Roy’s leadership, this weak and bumbling board took too long to fire a clearly failing CEO and now has no plan, except throwing up their hands and hoping someone comes along.”

Here is one certainty: Someone is going to come along and it is not going to be pretty.

And so it begins again for Yahoo.

When shareholders attack, that is.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Third Point LLC, a large shareholder of Yahoo, called for a new board.

The multi-billion dollar hedge fund now owns 5.1 percent of the Silicon Valley Internet giant, making it the third largest shareholder.

“This letter details our principled demands for sweeping changes in both the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and Company leadership, and outlines the hidden value of Yahoo, which has been severely damaged — but not irreparably — by poor management and governance,” said Third Point CEO Daniel Loeb in a letter to Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock.

Loeb outlines the damage, including the botched takeover fight with Microsoft and its hiring of the now ousted CEO Carol Bartz.

He calls for Bostock’s departure too from the board, as well as others:

“It is time that certain members of this Board were held accountable for its past failures and their individual roles. Accordingly, we insist that Mr. Bostock, who championed Ms. Bartz’s hiring and led the charge against the Microsoft deal, promptly resign from the Board. We also demand that fellow Directors Arthur Kern and Vyomesh Joshi, who have stood by silently during these last five years of woeful performance, join Mr. Bostock in resignation. Finally, we can only assume that Director Susan James, the President of Tri-Valley Animal Rescue, will also resign, given her close relationship with Ms. Bartz. If she does not do so voluntarily, the Board should request her resignation as well.”

The last time Yahoo had a big shareholder fight — with well-known investor Carl Icahn — there was much damage all around, especially to its share price.

You can read Third Point’s 13D filing here:

YHOO-20110908-SC13D-0

Yesterday, David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital dumped his bid to buy the New York Mets.

“I am disappointed to announce that I will not be purchasing an ownership interest in the New York Mets baseball team at this time,” said the well-known Wall Street hedge fund manager in a statement.

Why does that matter to tech? Well, because Einhorn has been an active player in the sector of late, including buying and then dumping a big chunk of stock in Yahoo earlier this year.

He currently owns slugs of Seagate, Apple, Best Buy and, in his largest holding, almost 15 million shares of Microsoft.

Now, it will be interesting to see if he’ll put his proverbial eye back on the ball of attacking the company’s CEO Steve Ballmer, as he had been doing many months ago.

While also maintaining that the stock was undervalued by investors, for example, Einhorn said in May that the software giant had “Charlie Brown management” and that Ballmer’s “continued presence is the biggest overhang on Microsoft’s stock.”

That did not stop Greenlight from adding more Microsoft shares to its holdings, jumping to an ownership stake of 14.8 million shares as of June 30, compared to 9.1 million shares at the end of the previous quarter.

Now that he has more time on his hands post-Mets, will Einhorn renew his Ballmer criticism?

We’ll see soon enough, as well as what Microsoft’s own outlook is, at its annual Financial Analyst Meeting later this month in Anaheim.

Ballmer, as well as a panoply of other Microsoft execs, will be making presentations there.

But it didn’t go on for long in the case of David Einhorn’s high-profile hedge fund Greenlight Capital, which today dumped an investment it made earlier this year in Yahoo on high hopes of the value of the Internet giant’s stake in China’s Alibaba Group.

That was before the ugly public fight Yahoo got into with Alibaba over its Alipay payment unit and especially with its voluble CEO Jack Ma.

In a letter to investors, Einhorn (pictured right) said the kerfuffle, which has hit Yahoo’s stock hard, “wasn’t what we signed up for.”

Yahoo shares are down just below two percent today and are now at $15.52 each.

Einhorn said in the letter that his fund had “a modest loss” in Yahoo, which sources said was about $20 million.

Einhorn had bought less than .65 percent of Yahoo, or about 8.5 million shares in March, which he said was due to his feeling that the company was undervalued with regard to its Asian assets.

Said Einhorn at the time: “We would not be surprised if YHOO’s 40 percent stake in Alibaba Group alone was ultimately worth YHOO’s entire current market value.”

Fast forward to today:

“The Partnership bought Yahoo! (YHOO) earlier this year based on a sum of the parts analysis, which included putting substantial value on its Chinese assets. Shortly after the purchase, the value of the Chinese assets came into doubt as the CEO of the Chinese unit hived-off a valuable subsidiary into a corporation that he personally controls. From there, the finger pointing started in every direction. This wasn’t what we signed up for. We exited with a modest loss.”

Here’s the full Einhorn letter, which appeared on zerohedge.com:

Qlet2011-02

Back in April of 2009, like all the rest of the parts of the Chinese Internet giant Alibaba Group, its Alipay unit was listed this way on its Web site: “Alipay is wholly owned by Alibaba Group.”

And right now, describing the online payments platform? (my italics): “Alipay is an affiliate of Alibaba Group.”

Memo to Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz: You might have noticed that critical change in Alipay’s corporate status, which happened last August, given the company you lead owns 43 percent of the Alibaba Group.

More to the point, Alipay accounted for $1.7 billion of Yahoo’s valuation.

Not surprisingly, Yahoo shares are down more than six percent in after-hours trading, likely in reaction to an unusual statement by Yahoo yesterday, in which the company said it had no idea until March 31 that Alibaba CEO Jack Ma had transferred ownership of the Alipay unit to a separate entity.

Sources said that apparently happened in a letter from Alibaba to Yahoo’s accounting department. Since then, the company said it has been trying to figure it all out.

Said Yahoo:

On March 31, 2011, Yahoo! and Softbank were notified by Alibaba Group of two transactions that occurred without the knowledge or approval of the Alibaba Group board of directors or shareholders. The first was the transfer of ownership of Alipay in August 2010. The second was the deconsolidation of Alipay effective in the first quarter of 2011.

Yahoo! disclosed this restructuring in its 10-Q after discussions with Alibaba Group and obtaining a better understanding of this complex situation.

Yahoo! continues to work closely with Alibaba and Softbank to protect economic value for all interested parties. We believe ongoing negotiations among all of the parties provide the best opportunity to achieve an outcome in the best interest of all stakeholders.

Translation: Alibaba’s Ma–who cites upcoming new rules about foreign ownership from People’s Bank of China related to operating its payment business–just snookered us and we need to play dumb until we decide whether a lawsuit will be one disaster too many for our much-beleaguered investors.

Really pissed off shareholders is more like it–BoomTown has been on the receiving end of an explosive series of calls from Yahoo’s investors today asking a variety of questions.

They include:

1. How could Alibaba have reported its results with Alipay consolidated in, even though it was a separate entity since last year? And does that spell trouble for Yahoo, since it used those numbers in its own regulatory filings in the U.S.?

2. How could Ma initiate such a transaction without approval from shareholders and its board, as Yahoo claims?

3. In any case, why weren’t Yahoo execs paying more attention to the swirling changes related to foreign ownership in China, especially since Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang is on the Alibaba board, anticipating that there could be real problems ahead?

4. Why did Yahoo execs not tell shareholders about the situation immediately or even at its April earnings call? Or perhaps before David Einhorn’s hedge fund Greenlight Capital hedge fund took a big position in Yahoo last week, specifically noting the value of the company’s Asian assets as highly attractive.

5. Does this move mean that those pretty Chinese assets Yahoo has touted are not so pretty after all, given that these kinds of things can happen there?

6. Should U.S. investors remove themselves from that Chinese market, given that these kinds of things can happen there?

7. Is Bartz’s extraordinarily tense personal relationship with Ma a big part of the problem, creating a distasteful public feud over issues better left to quiet backroom negotiations?

There will be plenty more, of course, especially around Yahoo’s disclosures to investors.

Yahoo execs will argue that it did disclose in the proper manner from a filing point of view and that it did not reveal the fissure so as not to put its negotiations with Alibaba over the situation at risk.

But–especially given the myriad of continued missteps by Bartz that have worked investors’ last nerve–that probably is not going to fly.

In fact, that irked sentiment will surely be on display at Yahoo’s upcoming investor day on May 25.

Yahoo had hoped to show off its new team of execs and talk about some legitimate momentum the company is making.

Now, it will doubtlessly all be about China and what happened there.

So, Bartz has to have a better line than a take on a Hollywood classic: “Forget it, Wall Street. It’s China.”

Maybe so, but it’s her problem to solve now.

And here’s my favorite version of that line:

The verdict by the 12-member jury, following 11 days of deliberation, capped a blockbuster trial that started in early March featuring 45 recorded calls showing how the hedge-fund executive trafficked in insider tips provided to him by a web of contacts at the top tier of American business.

The widely watched trial exposed the behind-the-scenes dealings of a once-prestigious hedge fund that gained access to highly sensitive information about, among other things, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. at the height of the financial crisis. The government put at $63.8 million the amount in illegal profits and avoided losses Galleon realized through the scheme.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The potential acquisition of ATI Technologies Inc., a Canadian graphics company, by chip maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. was so secret that the project was at first code-named “Supernova,” and then “Go Big,” said Anil Kumar, a former McKinsey & Co. consultant who advised AMD on the deal. In discussions, AMD was referred to as “Los Angeles” and ATI was called “San Antonio,” he said.

But for months before the deal was announced in July 2006, Mr. Kumar testified, he had been discussing AMD’s plans with Mr. Rajaratnam. Mr. Kumar has testified that Mr. Rajaratnam had been paying him $500,000 a year for inside information, which was reinvested in Galleon through an account in India under his housekeeper’s name.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Oh dear, BoomTown is still jetlagged from my recent trip to China and now Microsoft Bing is offering up a head-requiring event later this morning in San Francisco to explore the future of search.

There better be donuts.

A lot and with sprinkles, since speakers include the lugubrious investor and hedge fund philosophizer Peter Thiel and skunk-at-a-Web-garden-party author Malcolm Gladwell.

Here’s Microsoft Bing exec Satya Nadella’s blog post on the event, as well as one pre-video of what to expect from the sessions.

In it, Gladwell, noting the richness in search has yet to cure cancer, has a good point, which should be interesting with the backdrop of the protests going on in Egypt and elsewhere.

As in: If governments can block search, does it really matter?

I will be posting if someone comes up with a good answer to that one.

Bing and Big Think present Farsight 2011: “Beyond the Search Box” Event and Webcast

In the past ten years, search has transformed the way we experience the web even as the web itself has changed. New user interfaces, mobile devices, and interactive services are evolving beyond text pages intertwining the ‘web’ into all aspects of our lives and thus we expect to be able to do more online with less friction. Along with the innovation has come an explosion of information and services that are compounding at an exponential rate. Trying to get things done on the web is becoming more complex and fragmented every day. In short, unlike many consumer products, the problems facing the search industry are getting harder–not easier.

In order for us to truly realize the science-fiction dream of so many of us kids, of that ubiquitous intelligent agent, we want to elevate the discussion in search beyond next quarter’s technology. To begin to do that Bing has teamed with Big Think to bring the best minds from inside and outside the industry together for a series of spirited conversations, panels, and demos examining the “Future of Search.”

The group we’ve assembled includes Hedge Fund Manager and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, Recorded Future co-founder and CEO Chris Ahlberg, journalist entrepreneur Esther Dyson, contrarian journalist and “Tipping Point” author Malcolm Gladwell among others.

In addition, Farsight 2011 will include a search industry roundtable featuring Matt Cutts from Google, Rich Skrenta from Blekko and our very own Harry Shum from Bing. The panel and much of the day will be moderated by the entrepreneur and technologist, Vivek Wadhwa.

You are invited to take part in the discussion, by submitting your questions for the experts in advance at BigThink.com. Then return on February 1 to watch the conference streaming LIVE from 10:00am to 2:00pm PST on Big Think.com.

I encourage you to tune and be a part of the conversation to help all of us realize the potential that this most powerful technology can bring.

Satya Nadella–Senior Vice President, Online Services

That’s the thinking behind hedge fund Harbinger Capital’s bet on the troubled smartphone maker: The New York-based investment group disclosed today that it has purchased 16 million shares of Palm (PALM). That’s a little less than 10 percent of the company, which is actively looking for buyers after flailing against Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone, Research in Motion’s (RIMM) BlackBerry and Google’s (GOOG) Android.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filing detailing Harbinger’s investment doesn’t actually have much in the way of details. But it appears that Harbinger purchased its stake on or before April 12, the day news surfaced that Palm had hired bankers to shop the company.

If Harbinger sounds familiar to you, it may be because it’s one of the funds that bet on the New York Times (NYT) a couple years ago. That didn’t work out so well, but Harbinger was still up more than 45 percent last year, Reuters says.

More background on Palm.

“No one in our legal department or management knows anything about this,” said Paul Otellini, chief executive of the chip giant, in an interview at The Wall Street Journal’s headquarters in New York.

An executive in Intel’s treasury department, Rajiv Goel, is one of those facing conspiracy and securities-fraud criminal charges, as well as civil insider-trading charges, in the investigation into Galleon, a hedge fund at the center of the biggest insider-trading case in decades.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

DST will not get a board seat or “special observer rights” in return for its money. The two companies are holding a press conference shortly, so we may be able to extract a few more details.

The $10 billion valuation is comedown from the $15 billion figure that accompanied Microsoft’s (MSFT) 2007 investment, but no one expected that figure to hold up–in large part that deal was driven by a bidding war with Google (GOOG) and not much else.

Facebook and its newest investors are conducting a conference call to discuss the deal; I’ll be covering the call live.

FACEBOOK RECEIVES INVESTMENT FROM DIGITAL SKY TECHNOLOGIES

Passive Investment Includes Stake in Preferred Stock, Common Stock and Support for Facebook’s Continued Global Growth

PALO ALTO, Calif. — May 26, 2009 — Facebook today announced that Digital Sky Technologies (DST), one of the leading internet investment groups globally with significant stakes in Eastern European and Russian internet businesses, has made a $200 million investment in Facebook in exchange for preferred stock, representing a 1.96 percent equity stake at a $10 billion valuation.

In addition, DST has indicated that it is planning to offer to purchase at least $100 million of Facebook common stock from existing common stockholders that would facilitate liquidity for current and former employees’ vested shares in the company. The details of the plan are expected to be announced to eligible participants during the summer. Consistent with Facebook’s practice with other recent investors, DST will not be represented on the Facebook board or hold special observer rights.

“This investment demonstrates Facebook’s ongoing success at creating a global network for people to share and connect,” said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “We’ve worked hard to bring more than 200 million people — 70 percent outside of the U.S. — onto Facebook to share with friends, family and co-workers. A number of firms approached us, but DST stood out because of the global perspective they bring — backed up by the impressive growth and financial achievements of their internet investments. We’re looking forward to working with the DST team.”

“Our investment experience in other regions reveals the tremendous value social networking companies create as they redefine how people communicate and interact,” said Yuri Milner, chief executive of DST.  “By every important metric — user growth and engagement, technological innovation and financial performance — Facebook is on a similar trajectory, though on a much more global scale. We’re delighted to invest in Facebook, Mark and his management team as they make the world more open and connected.”

Based in London and Moscow, DST is a well-respected investor in a number of successful internet companies, holding significant interests in Russia and Eastern Europe, such as Mail.ru, Forticom and vKontakte.  DST’s main assets account for over 70 percent of all page views in the Russian-speaking internet and its social networks are the market leaders in more than 13 countries, addressing a combined population of more than 350 million.

DST is run by its three partners who have complementary backgrounds in operations, investments and finance: Yuri Milner, previously CEO of Mail.ru, the #1 Russian language website; Gregory Finger, previously head of the Moscow office of NCH, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund; and Alexander Tamas, previously co-head of internet and software coverage in EMEA for the Investment Banking Division of Goldman Sachs. With its advanced understanding of opportunities in technology and social media, DST is a good fit for Facebook and an insightful partner that can help unlock additional growth opportunities.

Marked by panic selling and wet-your-pants fear, it was one of the worst weeks in the financial world’s history–a week that cut the legs out from under Google (GOOG), beat Yahoo until its market cap bled purple and caused the Dow Jones Industrial Average to swing more than one thousand points on an intra-day basis.

It was a week that saw Sequoia Capital warn its portfolio companies to prepare for a protracted downturn or, in the words of partner Michael Moritz, be “spattered on windshields and radiator grills and be forgotten.” Turns out Bubble 2.0 sounds a lot like Bubble 1.0 when it pops.

Beneath the screams of agony echoing across Wall Street, there was other news worth noting:

• Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) announced plans to spin off its manufacturing operations.
• “Legal” turned out to be a poor choice of adjectives for RealNetworks’ RealDVD (RNWK), the company’s new “legal” DVD ripper. A judge extended the temporary restraining order barring the company from distributing it.
• This just in: Time Warner’s (TWX) AOL and Yahoo (YHOO) are still talking about a merger and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
  Where is Microsoft (MSFT) in all this? Sitting on the sidelines hoping the deal will go through.
• Finally, activist investor Eric Jackson, the creator of the Yahoo! Plan B investor community, revealed Yahoo! Plan C: his hedge fund’s divestiture of its Yahoo stake.

“I sold my YHOO stake, which I held through my hedge fund last month when it hit $20,” Jackson told Digital Daily. “I still own a small amount personally. I had no idea idea it would fall this much but I finally decided to stop pushing a rope by calling for change from the inside [as a shareholder]. I voted with my feet. This board has the blood of its shareholders on its hands, and I hope they wear that scarlet letter stigma for a long time.”

Asked to comment on Mithras Capital Partners proposal that Yahoo (YHOO) sell itself to Microsoft (MSFT) for $22 a share, Jackson had this to say: “If I was in Redmond, I’d say why not wait a few weeks and pick this company up for a couple of bucks?”  

“I sold my YHOO stake, which I held through my hedge fund last month when it hit $20,” Jackson told Digital Daily. “I still own a small amount personally. I had no idea idea it would fall this much but I finally decided to stop pushing a rope by calling for change from the inside [as a shareholder]. I voted with my feet. This board has the blood of its shareholders on its hands, and I hope they wear that scarlet letter stigma for a long time.”

Asked to comment on Mithras Capital Partners proposal that Yahoo (YHOO) sell itself to Microsoft (MSFT) for $22 a share, Jackson had this to say: “If I was in Redmond, I’d say why not wait a few weeks and pick this company up for a couple of bucks?”