The move to hire restructuring lawyers signals Kodak is intensifying efforts to ensure it has the financial wherewithal to complete a difficult strategic and financial revamp. Shares in the 131-year-old company have lost around a third of their value this week following Kodak’s disclosure that it pulled $160 million from a credit line.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The industrial conglomerate, whose products range from health-care supplies to abrasives and Post-it notes, said it will offer $10.50 a share for Cogent Inc., Pasadena, Calif., whose board recommended that shareholders accept the bid.

3M, which is based in St. Paul, Minn., said the net cost of the proposed acquisition would be around $430 million because Cogent holds about $18 million of cash and $496 million of marketable securities, including U.S. government, corporate and municipal bonds.

“Companies are flush with cash,” said Robert Profusek, global head of the mergers and acquisitions practice at law firm Jones Day, which wasn’t involved in the deal. “You’ve got to put it to use.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Yesterday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy filed a petition with the FTC demanding that Majoras recuse herself from voting on the Google-DoubleClick deal because her husband is a equity partner at Jones Day, the law firm representing DoubleClick in the merger. Moreover, Majoras herself was once a partner at Jones Day as well. “A reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the chairman’s impartiality in this matter,” the two consumer advocacy groups said in the filing (PDF). “The direct and predictable financial interest is on the spouse of the chairman, whose firm does not simply represent a party before the commission but who himself is directly responsible for the firm’s business development in Washington, D.C.” (In a statement issued by the FTC today, Majoras corrects what she calls “key factual errors” in the petition and lays out her case for fulfulling “the duties entrusted to me when I was appointed and confirmed.”)

Now, the FTC claims that Jones Day is advising DoubleClick only on the European Commission’s review of the merger. “We learned only yesterday that Jones Day is representing DoubleClick before the European Commission, not the (U.S.) Federal Trade Commission,” FTC spokeswoman Claudia Bourne Farrell told News.com. “Jones Day has not appeared before the FTC on this matter.”

But a page on Jones Day’s Web site seemed to say otherwise–at least until it was deleted. But while it may have disappeared from jonesday.com, it did not disappear from Google’s cache.

Jones Day is advising DoubleClick Inc., the digital marketing technology provider, on the international and U.S. antitrust and competition law aspects of its planned $3.1 billion acquisition by Google Inc. The proposed acquisition will combine DoubleClick’s expertise in ad management technology with Google’s Internet search and content platform. The transaction is currently under review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and European Commission.”

Now why would Jones Day pull that page (and beyond that, why would it be so ignorant of the dangers of Google’s cache)? It was “confusing,” the firm says. “The language in the posting apparently was confusing, since EPIC cites it as evidence JD is representing DC at the FTC, and we never have,” Jones Day partner Joe Sims told News.com. “So we took it down and will rewrite it to eliminate the confusion.”

The FTC is currently reviewing the matter with its ethics officer.