aapl

The Financial Times reports that Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) held "secret talks" to sell a stake of up to 50% in itself to investors in China and/or South Korea during the first week of August, but failed to reach any deal. The company held talks with Korea Development Bank and China's Citic Securities at its Times Square headquarters.

Of course all this happened while the company told everyone that everything was fine and blasted short sellers for raising questions about its balance sheet. And get this: back in June the company was buying back stock at a far higher valuation than it will now be able to raise capital at: that's just bad management.

The company's effort to sell a 50% stake just a few weeks ago does not bode well for the company's upcoming earnings report and neither does the fact that it was unable to reach any deal with the foreign investors.

"If people think they (Lehman) are heading toward bankruptcy, nobody will want to do business with them or make them new loans. That's Fuld's biggest problem," NYU economist Richard Sylla told The Associated Press.

But Lehman's credibility is so shot from the uncertainty and lack of forthrightness that it will likely have a hard time convincing anyone to trust it.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) Chief Executive Richard Fuld is running out of rabbits to pull out of his hat.

The troubled Wall Street bank, which reportedly is set to take a $4 billion write down in the third quarter, is desperate to raise capital. The Wall Street Journal says it's shopping around its investment management business, which includes Neuberger Berman. During the second quarter, the business reported net revenue of $800 million, down from $1 billion a year earlier. Its assets under management were $277 billion. Though these results were hardly spectacular, they stood in contrast to the Capital Markets business, which reported negative revenue of $2.4 billion.

Selling the asset management business would bring in between $8 billion and $10 billion, according to analysts cited by the Journal. Lehman's market capitalization now stands at about $10.4 billion thanks to the 77% decline in the stock price this year.

"Any change in the unit's ownership structure would be bittersweet for Lehman," according to the Journal. "The division has been a strong performer ever since Lehman bought it in 2003, holding up well despite the mortgage crisis. While a sale would give Lehman a cash infusion, the investment bank would lose a steady source of revenue."

Lehman acquired Neuberger for $2.6 billion in 2003, and some unhappy Neuberger executives are eager to dump their shares, the paper said.

Not all investors, however, believe that all hope is lost. Lehman's shares rose Friday on a report that billionaire George Soros boosted his stake in the company.

If the sale goes through, there is no way that Lehman will be able to remain independent.

Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) has been touting its Android mobile operating system platform for over a year. Still without a product to showcase its efforts, many are beginning to wonder if Google has classified Android as "vaporware." Even though the company is itself not making a single piece of hardware, a mobile handset is the product the customer will use. So, Google, where is it?

Apple, Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iPhone 3G, which admittedly has a few issues, but is still selling like hotcakes, is stealing any thunder Android would have created. T-Mobile USA, the fourth-largest mobile operator in the U.S., may have an Android phone on the market sometime in September, according to TMoNews. Still, is it too late for Android to make a huge splash in the mobile pool?

Back in the good 'ol days of say 2004, Gannett Co. (NYSE: GCI) was one of the few newspaper publishers Wall Street liked. Part of the reason was that many of the papers were in smaller cities such as Wilmington, Delaware, and Poughkeepsie, NY, where competition was not as great for advertisers. These days the publisher of USA Today is up the creek with the rest of the industry.

With its shares down more than 50% this year, it should come as no surprise that Gannett is joining the ranks of publishers that are laying off staff. According to a memo leaked to the unofficial Gannett blog, about 1,000 positions will be eliminated across Gannett's Community Publishing Division. Six hundred of those employees will lose their jobs, the memo says.

"Several GCI papers have already made recent job cuts, but at a higher rate: 5%," the blog says. "The division's dailies do not include USA Today, suggesting that any further reductions at Gannett's flagship could be on top of the 1,000 jobs eliminated."

Gannett investors -- who must be the few, the proud like The Marines -- must have been expecting the move. Shares of the publisher have soared 10% in the past month. About the only relief they are going to get is through a takeover by private equity companies. The publicly traded media companies have no interest in buying into an industry whose best days are behind it.

The internet was buzzing last week after an article in the Shelbyville (that's right, I said Shelbyville), Tenn. Times-Gazette reported that Tyson Foods Inc (NYSE:TSN) employees at the local poultry plant could take off the Muslim holiday Eid Al-Fitr, which celebrates the end of Ramadan, instead of Labor Day. As you might expect in year seven of our 'war' on terrorism, some readers went apoplectic at the thought of an American corporation granting a non-Christian holiday.

Now Tyson is in a full-court press to respond to the story, and I think the company deserves consideration. Its press release explains that the exchange affects only this plant, and was granted in response to a request from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Stores Union. Around 250 of its members are Somali immigrants, legally in the U.S. as political refugees, who work at the plant.

Yesterday on the tech news site TechCrunch, it was reported that Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) may be buying social news website Digg.com for up to $200 million. Now, Digg.com has come under acquisition rumors so far, but this is the most serious one. Google stands to keep its iron fist over the controlled flow of information with the purchase if, in fact, it is officially announced.

Digg.com, which has propelled itself into the limelight by having its members and readers publish links to news stories from around the globe and vote on them to let its customers choose "headlines," is no small potato.

Although Google was rumored to have been in the chase for the company back in March, it should go ahead and just make the announcement official. Integration of Digg.com into Google News (which is already an excellent product) would take Google's news aggregation product to the next level and would assist it solidifying its daily news position against the likes of Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) and Yahoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO).

Digg.com would not be a good fit for Microsoft, however. While Microsoft continues to roll out web-based properties and products, many of its actions seem to be compelled by a "me too" attitude more than a corporate strategy, regardless of what the company says. Google, right now, has the cachet and the product breadth to continue steamrolling much of the competition -- and a Digg.com purchase would just make it stronger.

With the plunge in the equities markets, there are certainly some compelling opportunities. Just look at Napster Inc. (NASDAQ: NAPS), an online music operator. The company has $69.8 million in the bank and a market cap of $66.4 million. Yes, Wall Street is valuing the business at below zero.

Well, hedge funds are taking notice (this is a according to Bloomberg.com). For example, Eminence Capital LLC has increased its equity stake to a cool 9%. This is usually the first step in forcing a company to sell out.

One possibility is for Napster to go private. However, this will probably not carry much of a premium.

Instead, I'm sure the hedgies want Napster to get an offer from a strategic player, such as RealNetworks (NASDAQ: RNWK). Oh, and another possibility is JDS Capital Management Inc., which owns eMusic.com. Keep in mind that the firm purchased one million shares of Napster in Q1.

Actually, Napster controls about a majority of the U.S. online music subscription market. The problem: it's a niche market.

So, with hedge funds swarming, it's going to be tough for Napster to ignore things. In fact, in Friday's trading, the company's shares spiked 27% to $1.39 as the rumors buzzed.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Edgar Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements. He also operates MergerBook.com.

Shares of Napster (NASDAQ: NAPS) rose more than 27% on Friday on speculation that the online seller of MP3s could be a takeover target at its current depressed share price.

The bullish case is easy to understand. The Napster name and site must be worth something and, before Friday's run-up, the company had a market cap of $52.1 million and $69.8 million in cash. Given Napster's iconic status as the beginning of music piracy, it's hard to imagine that the stock could be so cheap. Wouldn't the brand be worth something to anyone in the music download business? It's instantly recognizable and it would take many millions in advertising to create such a brand from scratch.

So I'm in complete agreement with the shareholders and analysts -- this company should be sold, and such a move would likely generate tremendous value for shareholders. But there's another side: as a stand-alone public company, Napster is a ticking time bomb.

On Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission threw a brushback pitch at those who are betting on the further collapse of our big financial institutions. Instead of suggesting better oversight of the companies, the SEC is going after short sellers.

For 30 days starting Monday, short-selling will be restricted on 19 financial companies. Financial regulators are also cracking down on "sensational rumors." To put the short-selling rule in perspective, consider that even when the market re-opened after the September 11th attacks, the SEC considered, but didn't implement, short sale restrictions.

Since Bear Steans collapsed and Vanity Fair bought the company's story that short-sellers did them in, everyone is worried that short sellers are bringing the market down. And I'm sure they are, but short-selling, after all, is legal. The SEC just loosened rules on it last year.

Yesterday, SEC chair Steven Cox testified that he's worried about short-selling in connection with spreading false rumors to manipulate the market. OK, that's not legal, but as Cox pointed out, the SEC brought its first case -- EVER -- for this sort of deception this year. And it still hasn't gone after anyone for spreading false positive rumors about a company.

Often the source of a rumor is as important as the rumor itself. Some sources simply have more credibility than others. Reuters has reported that talks to make either Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) or Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) the new owner of Time Warner (NYSE: TWX)'s AOL are heating up.

Now, The Wall Street Journal say that negotiations between Time Warner management and Microsoft brass have become more urgent.

The paper writes, "Microsoft Corp., seeking an alternative to a deal with Yahoo Inc., is planning to meet executives from Time Warner Inc.'s AOL today to advance discussions on a possible tie-up."

Of course, the rumors has the strength of making sense. For Microsoft or Yahoo! to get bigger in display advertising and have more online consumers using their search services, AOL is the only other really large internet property available. And Time Warner management has strongly hinted that it would like to find a home for the portal company.

One thing is certain. Yahoo! will not be AOL's buyer. The likely proposal from Yahoo! would be for it to buy AOL by giving Time Warner a big piece of ownership in the combined company. That would leave TWX with perhaps a third of the public stock in Yahoo. Selling off a stake of that size would be nearly impossible. Time Warner might as well keep AOL under those circumstances. Also, Yahoo! management has been so maladroit at running its own affairs that Time Warner should have very little confidence that the group could run a larger operation.

Time Warner will look at Microsoft as AOL's buyer for two key reasons. First, it has cash; and second, it will not allow AOL to fall into Yahoo!'s hands to give the. No. 2 search company the advantage of improving its position in that part of the online industry.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

It's no secret that Sprint Nextel Corp. (NYSE: S) has been losing hordes of customers in the last year as it continues to struggle with not only its dual-network business model but with retaining customers. Although rumors of another large wireless telecom company buying Sprint Nextel have surfaced recently, nothing has really panned out. However, the most serious rumor has now just shown up at the door.

South Korean wireless telecom giant SK Telecom is apparently in talks to buy the struggling U.S. wireless carrier according to reports this week. However, there have also been reports that the company just wants to "partner on technology" with Sprint. Whatever the outcome may be, Sprint trades at just over $9 per share at this time, so a merger attempt now would be timed right. Since SK Telecom's market value is only about half that of Sprint's, private financing was suggested as the tool that would make a deal possible. Sprint may have had recent problems, but it's still the third-largest carrier in the U.S. with over 52 million customers. That's nothing to sneeze at.

Then again, SK Telecom may only make a partial investment in Sprint (a technology partnership, perhaps), in case it can't come up with the financing sources for an outright purchase. Similar to German telecom giant Deutsche Telekom -- which owns U.S. carrier T-Mobile USA -- the South Korean company wants a major presence in the U.S. Considering the top five wireless carriers in the U.S., Sprint Nextel is by far the most likely to give it the needed presence as the other four in the top five are already accounted for.

The SEC is trying to stop Wall Street players from spreading rumors that sink stocks, as I posted yesterday. The reason such rumors matter is because there are many companies that are unable to defend themselves from rumors. Bear Stearns comes to mind as an example. I think if someone tried to spread a rumor that Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) or Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A) were heading for bankruptcy, the rumor would not get foo far.

But if a company lacks such a strong reputation, its CEO needs to be prepared to respond effectively to such rumors. And I really don't think it should be difficult to mount an effective defense. In my mind, the CEO should be able to provide credible answers to two questions:

• Cash flow. How large are the company's short- and medium-term liabilities and how many times do the market value of its short- and medium-term assets cover these liabilities?
• Debt default. What are the company's key loan terms and what specific assurance can the company provide that it is in compliance with these terms?

Yesterday I blogged, with a good degree of skepticism, about the SEC's announcement that it is cracking down on rumor-spreading fear mongers looking to profit from declines in stocks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In one of his daily email newsletters, hedge fund manager/all-around smart guy Whitney Tilson quotes one of his friends:

Thank God someone is doing something about this. Because, as we all know, our financial regulators have done such a good job in overseeing the institutions that are suffering from this evil conspiracy. What would be even better is if the SEC, NYSE, etc. could identify and "bring to justice" those hedge funds and short-sellers that, through a vast conspiracy with the ever-compliant press, forced bank/brokerage management teams to make the trillions in bad loans that now imperil our economic system.

Exactly. Regulators did nothing to protect investors and consumers from this mess, and have sat idly by while so many companies have failed to level with investors about their problems. The reason that the rumors have such impact on the market is that many investors have concluded, correctly, that they can't rely on these firms to provide timely updates about their prospects. If BEAR STERNS COS INC (NYSE: BSC) was a victim of rumor-spreading short sellers, it was also a victim of its diminished credibility that created an opportunity for manipulation in the first place. The SEC should focus on actual problems, not rumors which, last time I checked, have always been part of the market.

Billboard reported Monday that EMI Group CEO Guy Hands "has informed staff at EMI that the music major is on target to deliver 'significant cost savings' after generating in excess of £100 million ($199 million) in its first quarter." The company, which has seen massive staff cuts this year and falling profits in the wake of Hands' Terra Firma buyout last September, has been rumored to be hedging its future on the success of the recently released Coldplay album, Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends.

The internal memo acquired by Billboard would seem to indicate otherwise however, instead pointing to earnings in the first quarter of 2008 compared a loss of nearly $90 million in the same quarter of 2007. Revenue in the first quarter rose 61%, while the Coldplay album was released only a month ago, in the second quarter. Hands had gone on record pushing for a "reshaped organizational structure" looking for greater profits and less loss, and with the new memo he appears to have achieved the "accountability" for EMI that he sought when Terra Firma bought the music company last year. The report also comes in the wake of EMI losing a few seasoned hands at the end of June and hiring a new CEO for the music division, Elio Leoni-Sceti, known for his past in household marketing and products.

In a press release issued on Sunday -- presumably meant to be a warning to traders before the opening bell on Monday -- the SEC announced that "the SEC and other securities regulators will immediately conduct examinations aimed at the prevention of the intentional spread of false information intended to manipulate securities prices."

Cash-bleeding train wrecks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) have complained that rumor-mongering has damaged investors by causing a precipitous slide in their stock prices. Bear Stearns executives have essentially blamed short-sellers for the company collapse which is, interestingly, the same argument made by Enron's former head honchos. Just saying.

I don't doubt that there's a fair amount of hanky panky on the part of short-sellers looking to profit from declines in share price, but I think that massive writedowns and a lack of transparency at these companies have been larger factors. As DealBreaker recently noted, "if a company can be brought down by the corporate equivalent of 7th grade girls passing notes in class, perhaps it doesn't deserve to exist anyway."

The Wall Street Journal notes (subscription required) that "The need for such a move by the SEC took on new urgency after a brutal week in the U.S. stock market, where major financial firms such as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were battered as rumors about everything from government bailouts to possible mergers flew across Wall Street."

This just in: Fed to rescue Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Apparently those mean short-selling trash-talkers were onto something.