agreed. it occured to me recently that it might be well worth some fine research minded soul to look into Hicks' record back in the eighties and nineties..where he made all the money in the first place..if he was an LBO man during the 'greed is good' 'wall street the movie' period, then there will be a trail of ruined lives that he left behind him. the business model was hostile takeover, break up the assets, close down factories and communities, and sell the remains of the carcass ..... a norman tebbit and the miners deal.
and before he buys the club perhaps let moores and parry know his history....oh, too late.
What you mean like the accusations of cronyism and being investigated by the feds due to his Utimco dealings:
“In one case, Hicks insisted that UTIMCO increase by $10 million an investment commitment to a company in which he had an indirect financial interest. The staff halted full funding of the investment when it discovered the conflict.
....
UTIMCO's investments were made in closed-door, off-campus meetings - including one in Hicks' boardroom at the Ballpark in Arlington. Such meetings have caused state auditors to question the secrecy and potential for conflicts of interest.
....
The California Public Employees Retirement System was rocked by scandal last year over elected officials who serve on the CALPERS board receiving campaign contributions from people, including Hicks, who wanted investment contracts.
The FBI conducted an inconclusive investigation of Hicks after his investment banking firm won a $100 million investment from the CALPERS board over the objections of its staff. The recommendation to invest with Hicks came from an outside consultant who nine months later sold a yacht to Hicks for a $45,000 profit."
http://www.utwatch.org/oldnews/chron_utimco_3_21_99.html“What nobody in Austin seemed to realize when Bush signed the UTIMCO bill was that unlike the Board of Regents, this new outfit would not be subject to state laws that man- date open meetings and public records. The regents had always taken advantage of loop-holes in those laws to shield their financial decisions behind a veil of privacy, but UTIMCO would be exempt from public scrutiny. The privatized corporation and its board would not even be listed in the official Texas State Directory. Nor would the non-regent appointees to the nine-member UTIMCO board be required to file personal financial disclosure documents like other appointees to state commissions and agencies.
In many respects, UTIMCO had been empowered to write its own rules, which suited Tom Hicks fine. After UTIMCO officially took over from the regents' investment committees in early 1996, with Hicks as its first chairman, all of its business was done behind closed doors. The directors often gathered for their monthly board meetings at the lavish offices of Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst in downtown Dallas rather than at UTIMCO's own more modest quarters in an Austin building named for Lady Bird Johnson. "It was a hell of a lot more convenient for all of us to meet there," Hicks noted. Largely freed from public accountability, UTIMCO embarked on a series of deals that raised serious questions about conflict of interest and political favoritism. Again, there was nothing unlawful about these decisions, all of which were vetted by the powerhouse law firm of Vinson & Elkins; they merely reflect the way business is often done behind closed doors-even, or especially, when the public's money is at stake. Friends and long-time associates of Thomas Hicks, and his firm's past and future business partners-as well as major Republican contributors and political supporters of the Bush family-received hundreds of millions of dollars from the University of Texas investment funds. In a certain sense, all this apparent favoritism was merely business as usual.”
……..
“But the University of Texas presented a special case because, unlike most public pension or University funds, the UTIMCO board was chaired by a powerful private investor who was making deals for his own firm at a frantic pace while simultaneously overseeing the investment of public money, often with his firm's putative competitors. It was an arrangement that existed nowhere else in the country, and it provided Tom Hicks with some remarkable advantages. Nothing could have been more useful to the chairman of Hicks, Muse than continuous access to confidential information concerning the other buyout firms, partnerships, and companies that approached UTIMCO seeking money. The otherwise unavailable details of who was involved in which deals and on what financial terms were provided to him routinely. And with that knowledge came the authority to award hundreds of millions in financing. The only real constraint on his power was the presence of the governor's other appointees to the Board of Regents. He had little reason to worry about them, however. Under his chairmanship of UTIMCO, nearly every vote on policy and asset management carried unanimously and rarely was any dissent heard. He also had considerable leverage over the senior staff that formally recommended investments to the board because, as chair of the board's compensation committee, he had raised their salaries by tens of thousands of dollars when they became employees of UTIMCO.”
http://www.utwatch.org/utimco/nativeson.htmlHicks was also involved in Viasytems which laid off workers then filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
“But the Chronicle can reveal he is a former chairman of Viasystems Group Inc, the parent company of Viasystems Tyneside Ltd which dumped 1,000 Geordies on the dole in 2001.
And to this day they have still not been paid their redundancy payments worth an average Ł27,000 each, with some payments running as high as Ł50,000.
Under a Viasystems redundancy scheme they should have received a set amount of money for every year they served with the company.
But workers have only ever received a statutory Government payout worth just 2p for every Ł1 they were owed.
Circuit board manufacturer Viasystems Tyneside Ltd went into administration in September 2001.”
……
“Mr Hicks co-founded and became chairman of investment firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst in 1989 which in turn founded Viasystems in 1996, with Mr Hicks on the board of directors.
In 2001 the investment firm, of which Tom Hick's was chairman, took majority control of Viasystems and in February 2002 Mr Hicks became chairman of the Viasystems Group.
He eventually retired from the board of Viasystems and the investment firm at the end of 2004.”
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/tm_headline=tycoon-returns&method=full&objectid=18588846&siteid=50081-name_page.htmlBecause of laying off staff they ran into trouble with the DTI about a public grant:
“Former trade secretary Stephen Byers may call on Viasystems to pay back Ł17m of government aid after the electronics giant announced 850 redundancies.
The Department of Trade and Industry is reported to be investigating the terms on which it gave the grant.
The money was designed to encourage investment in the North-east of England.
American-owned Viasystems received the cash over five years in a scheme aimed at creating jobs in areas of high unemployment.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1524366.stmWorkers marched in protest at this.
“On Saturday, October 6, over 400 redundant workers, family and friends marched from the Viasystems plant in South Shields to the South Shields Social and Labour Club for a meeting. They marched from the factory in Laygate, South Shields, which still retains 850 workers. It is reported that they are also due to be laid off by Christmas. The march and meeting was organised by the workers themselves to discuss their campaign against the job losses and plant closures. The workers also invited union organisers and the local MP who were due to attend the meeting later.
The receivers had announced the previous day that there were 17 expressions of interest in buying both the South Shields and North Tyneside factories and the workers discussed how this would affect their campaign. The workers called on the government to end the situation where companies like Viasystems can take advantage of huge grants and then pull out. It was revealed the day before in the North East Journal that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) was prepared to take legal action if a Ł17 million grant given to boost employment on Tyneside was not paid back by one of two companies involved, the European PCB Group based in the Cayman Islands and the US electronics giant Viasystems Group Inc. It was reported that what is not clear is whether a guarantee that Viasystems Group Inc gave to the government in 1997 over paying back the grant if it closed down was transferred to European PCB Group (Cayman Islands) Ltd. These are the current owners who were responsible for calling in the receivers. Clearly the company had employed a technicality to get out of paying back the money and also make the government and taxpayer responsible for redundancy payments which, however, have not been paid. A spokeswoman for the DTI said: "We have written to both companies about recouping the grant. The structure of the company is extremely complicated and it is taking some time to work through but we are confident of getting the money back."
The situation has brought an angry but considered response from the workers that they must take matters into their own hands. They have faced divisive tactics from the company who have laid off workers at one plant and imported in redundant workers from another. Referring to the fact that the US owners have utilised the present crisis over the terrorist attacks on the US to announce the further closure of the South Shields plant, one worker referred to the "industrial terrorism" that has been carried out by companies like Viasystems”.
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/ww2001/d01-175.htm#viasystemsTo be fair it’s not clear who was chairman of Viasystems at the time because although Hicks became chairman in Feb 2002 the previous chairman had resigned in July 2001. Hicks had been on the board since Viasystems was founded though by HMFT.
“James Mills retired as chairman of Viasystem’s board of directors. Mills had retired from his post as Viasystems’ CEO in July 2001. Replacing Mills will be Thomas Hicks, a Viasystems board member and chairman of the board of Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Incorporated.”
http://custerconsulting.com/Pages/publications/GlobalSMT/200204/gsmt0402.htm Now it has been noted that the management of the time was European PCB not Viasystems which is what caused problems over who was responsible for the redundancy pay and repayment of the grant but EPCB was actually a subsidiary of Viasytems.
http://www.secinfo.com/durH7.v3.b.htmAnd it seems that Viasystems were held liable as they were made to repay some monies to the DTI:
“In conjunction with the Companys pre-packaged plan of reorganization approved by
the Bankruptcy Court, a Ł12 million (approximately $18 million) loan guaranteed
by the Company was cancelled and in exchange the Department of Trade and
Industry (the DTI) received a note (the DTI Note) in an amount equal to Ł9
million. Interest on the DTI Note was payable semi-annually in cash on a current
basis at an annual interest rate of three percent for periods up to September
30, 2008 and at an annual interest rate equal to the Bank of England Base Rate
plus two percent for periods thereafter. Principal on the DTI Note was payable
from December 31, 2008 through December 31, 2010 (provided all amounts due and
owing under the 2003 Credit Agreement were not paid in full prior to October 1,
2008); provided, however, proceeds received by the DTI pursuant to the
liquidation of Viasystems Tyneside Limited (VTL) would reduce the outstanding
principal under the DTI Note. The outstanding balance of the DTI Note was $12.5
million at December 31, 2003. In May 2004, the DTI Note was discharged in full
as a result of proceeds received by the DTI from the liquidation of VTL,
resulting in a reversal of reorganization expenses of $9,798.”
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/05/12/0001011240-05-000045/Section8.aspAnd just because I like it from a discussion in the House of Commons about the concerns of jobs in Scotland being moved to other areas of the UK:
“Viasystems was the final incarnation of the idea of a company that was indigenous, in the Borders, and built up from scratch over 30 years. When it was taken over by
what I can only politely describe as a bunch of unscrupulous American corporate financiers, it was clear that they intended to close down the sites on the Borders, and to move both jobs and contracts to other parts of the United Kingdom.”
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo991216/debtext/91216-23.htmViasystems was not the only thing to go wrong, from an article in 2003:
“Mr. Hicks is struggling to restore his and the firm's reputation after losing about $1 billion for his investors from minority stakes he took in six telecommunications and 13 Internet companies at the peak of the 1990's stock market bubble. ''We got sucked up in the vortex of the new economy,'' Mr. Hicks said in a recent interview.
That was hardly the firm's only misstep. Hicks, Muse's joint purchase, with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company, of Regal Cinemas also ended disastrously. Regal filed for bankruptcy in September 2001, costing the firm and its investors an additional $500 million. And Hicks, Muse has risked $1 billion on media companies in Argentina, which has been in a recession for four years.
Then there is the Viasystems Group, an electronics equipment maker Hicks, Muse controls that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last October.
Still, a chastened Mr. Hicks, who will turn 57 next month, says that he and his firm will restore its reputation now that he has refocused the firm on what it does best: buying companies at reasonable prices and expanding them to increase profits -- what he calls his ''buy and build'' strategy. The feeble economy is offering opportunities not seen in a decade, and many troubled companies are eager to discard parts of their businesses.
If only things were that simple.”
……
''We all collectively take guilt for bad decisions, Mr. Hicks said. He added that his firm last year let go 15 percent of its staff over all.
But Mr. Hicks is adamant that he, and his firm, will be around for many years to come. He personally plans to stick around at least until age 65, he said, or another eight years.
''This firm,'' Mr. Hicks said, ''is my legacy.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFDE1739F935A15752C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3He only lasted another year at his legacy though, he resigned in March 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_HicksCurrently there is trouble at Latrobe Speciality Steel of which Hicks Holdings is the controlling stockholder.
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2008/03/31/0001047469-08-003824/Section20.aspIn January the company received a public grant for expansion:
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2008/01/21/daily17.htmlBut on May 1st workers went on strike and were subsequently locked out and temp agency staff were brought in:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_573523.htmlhttp://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/westmoreland/16160137/detail.htmlWorkers are now going public about their dispute:
“Steelworkers at Latrobe Specialty Steel Co., who have been off the job in a labor dispute since May 1, are kicking off high-profile initiatives this week with a billboard along Route 30 in Unity and 1,000 yard signs in an effort to end the two-month lockout of union workers and return to the bargaining table, the union said Tuesday.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/search/s_576621.htmlHere’s what their union has to say:
http://www.uswlocal1537.org/lss.htmlThe Latrobe forum is pretty good too. Just like Rawk there’s an argument raging between two sides though there it’s pro/anti union, here it’s pro/anti G&H.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/latrobe-paI have to say though that the strikers are in dispute with the company rather than the stockholders so I suppose the connection with Hicks is a little soft but according to the strikers production is down so it’s nice to know he’s being affected anyway.
There’s other things too in his background but I haven’t looked too deeply into those. Now there’s probably something murky in every successful company or billionaire’s background, so it’s not really surprising that he’s not lily-white but there does seem to be an awful lot of murkiness for Hicks.
Please note, yes I know that some of these websites are obviously biased so make your own judgements and believe whatever you want to.
