The Heinz deal: Something's hinky
As reports have it, the dealmaking leading to Thursday's announcement that iconic U.S. investor Warren Buffett, though his Berkshire Hathaway company, would team up with increasingly influential Brazilian money man Jorge Paulo Lemann, through his 3G Capital company, to purchase the legendary H.J. Heinz Co. of Pittsburgh for $28 billion was shrouded in secrecy.
The players negotiating the largest acquisition ever in the food industry even went as far as using code names for one another. Mr. Buffet was “Owl.” Mr. Lemann was “Goose.” And the “Heinz” name was not to be uttered; its nom de guerre first was “Penguin” but became “Hawk” when the suitors could not remember the former, The New York Times reports.
Which makes what was happening on Wall Street at the same time all the more troubling: Options trading in Heinz stock soared on Wednesday. So much so that the Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an insider trading investigation.
Oh, and just coincidentally, Lemann's 3G already is the subject of an SEC insider trading investigation involving the company's takeover of Burger King. That case centers on a Wells Fargo employee allegedly receiving inside information from a 3G investor. That employee's assets were frozen pending an investigation. No charges have been filed.
The inquiry into the spike in Heinz options trading is no small matter. And given that the circle of people knowing of this pending deal supposedly was small and at the highest levels, more than a shadow could be dogging the Heinz takeover.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sunday pops
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- The Box
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- Radar searches: Get a warrant
- The Obama foreign policy ‘model’ imperils the world.
- The Cal U scandal: Warped ‘tolerance’
- U.N. Watch: Somalia aid sieve
- The Thursday wrap