Xerox Investor Calls Fuji Deal a Fraud 17 Years in the Making
A "crown jewel" lock-up right to Xerox's assets in the Asia-Pacific market effectively blocks any chance of a transparent and fair sale process, according to Deason Capital Services' president.
February 13, 2018 at 12:56 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Xerox's third-largest investor claims the recently announced joint venture deal between the printer company and Fujifilm's parent company represents a fraudulent scheme 17 years in the making.
In a suit filed in state Supreme Court in New York County, Darwin Deason alleges that during a presentation to investors early in February, Xerox officials made public for the first time that the agreement contained a “crown jewel” lock-up right.
The previously undisclosed agreement, according to Deason, was bad enough on its merits: Fuji would control Xerox's intellectual property and manufacturing rights in the $36 billion Asia-Pacific market in the event that Xerox were to sell off “just” 30 percent of the company to someone else. According to Deason, the agreement “effectively blocks any chance of a transparent and fair sale process.”
Making things more “shocking[],” Deason alleges that the agreement was made by Xerox managers and concealed from investors for nearly two decades.
“In fact, the 'end game' for Xerox—a sale to Fuji—was decided 17 years ago with this undisclosed 'crown jewel' lock-up right granted to Fuji, and shareholders had absolutely no clue,” Deason alleges.
The deal to combine Xerox with a 50-year joint venture with Fujifilm was announced on Jan. 31. According to details provided by Fujifilm, the Japanese company would take a 50.1 percent stake in Xerox. Shareholders were promised more than a 15 percent premium on Xerox shares that would result in a $2.5 billion special cash dividend. The deal promised to deliver more than a billion dollars in savings.
According to Deason, the agreement represents a breach of fiduciary duties by Xerox's board and executive officers. Chairman Robert Keegan and CEO Jeff Jacobson, along with numerous other directors, are allegedly “dramatically” undervaluing Xerox in a deal that “disproportionally favors Fuji,” the investor alleges. If the deal is allowed to go through, Deason claims, “Xerox shareholders will be virtually powerless over the future direction of their investment and will have no opportunity to receive a true control premium for their shares.”
The whole situation could have been avoided, according to Deason. After Fuji Xerox faced an accounting scandal in 2017 for overstating revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars, Xerox was in a position to terminate joint ventures over Fuji's “misconduct,” according to Deason. Doing so would have allowed for Xerox to shed “encumbrances” and enter into future negotiations as a standalone company.
Deason claims Xerox's directors are making matters worse by agreeing to make the “crown jewel” controls permanent by agreeing in the transaction documents not to terminate any agreement pending the closing of the deal.
“Simply put, the proposed transaction is the product of deceit and bad faith conduct by the director defendants and must be enjoined,” Deason stated in the complaint.
In a statement provided by a spokesman, Xerox called Deason's allegations meritless and vowed to “vigorously defend itself.”
“After having considered all strategic alternatives available to the company, Xerox's board of directors remains steadfast in its belief that the combination with Fuji Xerox is the best path to create value for the company and its shareholders,” the company said. “It is unfortunate that Mr. Deason is seeking to interfere with Xerox shareholder's right to decide and is relying on meritless legal claims. Xerox has fully disclosed the joint venture agreements, and the company will respond to Mr. Deason's legal claims through the appropriate legal channels in due course.”
A Fujifilm representative did not respond to a request for comment.
Deason is represented by King & Spalding in the matter.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250