Reuters' guard for independence
Reuters board meetings were “quite lively” when Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell served as directors, according to the only executive to survive both moguls at the electronic information and media group.
“They were quite impressive people and clearly competitors,” recalls Pehr Gyllenhammar, the legendary Swedish industrialist. “Maxwell wanted to be number one and let everyone know it; Murdoch was quieter he ended up realising his ambitions and Maxwell passed away.”
But the former Volvo chief executive, who quit Sweden following the collapse of the motor group's 1993 merger with Renault, helped frustrate one Murdoch ambition: a potential takeover of Reuters itself.
More than a decade ago, the News Corporation chairman was forced to reduce his 23 per cent stake in the electronic information group amid fears of a hostile bid, cutting his holding to below 15 per cent and ultimately selling out altogether.
“It was the only incident where we exercised our powers,” says Mr Gyllenhammar, referring to the little-known but important Reuters Founders Share Company.
The unwieldy title disguises a corporate man trap. The Founders Share Company formed following Reuters' 1984 flotation was set up mainly to defend the integrity and independence of Reuters' news service founded by Baron Paul Julius Reuter.
The principles, dating back to the second world war, allow the Founders Company to prevent any “single interest, group or faction” from building a controlling stake in the main group.
Mr Gyllenhammar, chairman of the Reuters Founders Share Company for the past eight years, denies the powerful entity was set up just to frustrate a takeover.
“It's not a poison pill, it's much more noble,” according to Mr Gyllenhammar, better known these days as chairman of Aviva, the UK's largest insurer. “It's not there to prevent a commercial undertaking but to protect the principles under which Reuters operates.”
In spite of Mr Gyllenhammar's protestations, the mechanism is regarded by some observers as a straightforward deal breaker.
Board members of the Founders Share Company, known as trustees, can force any investor exceeding a 15 per cent holding in the listed company to sell down. They can also request an extraordinary general meeting and block any investor attempting to gain control of the company defined as marshalling 30 per cent of the votes at an annual meeting.
In its annual report, Reuters says: “The restrictions on interests in ordinary shares and the extraordinary voting rights of the Founders Share may be characterised as anti-takeover provisions to the extent that they may have the effect of preventing a bid for control of Reuters Group.”
Other companies have also adopted poison pills including, ironically, News Corp. The US group led by Rupert Murdoch introduced a poison pill last year to prevent John Malone, the cable entrepreneur, from taking creeping control of the business. News Corp's concerns over Mr Malone mirrored Reuters' past fears about Mr Murdoch.
Those fears resurfaced three years ago, when Reuters shares reached a worrying low. In the event, the Founders Share structure may have saved the company from a bid.
Nevertheless, Mr Gyllenhammar who spent 13 years on the Reuters board before joining the Founders Share Company insists the powers are designed to protect the integrity of the listed group. He warns those powers could be invoked against the existing management if they failed to uphold the five core principles. “If any new owners could make a credible case that they would act in line with the principles and respect them, then they would not be blocked. But if there is a threat, we would act.” The business veteran, who is also vice-chairman of Rothschild Europe, regards the system as a potential model for other companies.
“Any commercial undertaking in today's climate where you have quite a few scandals and the fourth version of the Cadbury Code in the UK [on corporate governance], and codes all around Europe could look at us and say here is a company that has acted against set principles since the 1940s.”
Those principles are overseen by a board of trustees including Joseph Lelyveld, previously executive editor of the New York Times, Mark W?ssner, former Bertelsmann chief executive, and Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, the one-time Danish foreign minister. The 14 trustees, two of whom are judges at the European Court of Human Rights, have formed a governance committee and a ‘defence' committee to monitor the listed company. Mr Gyllenhammar contrasts the checks and balances with the apparent panic at the BBC in 2003, when the broadcaster was accused by the government of distortion and inaccuracy in reporting the case for war and particularly Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
“There was one high-profile BBC reporter who had been with Reuters, and he said if our principles had been adopted at the BBC all this would never have happened,” Mr Gyllenhammar says. “Instead, they faced a scandal where the chairman and the director-general were forced to resign.”
The BBC's difficulties coincided with embarrassing editorial failings and resignations at the New York Times, USA Today and CBS News. Those setbacks and unrelated scandals such as the demise of Enron and WorldCom have convinced Reuters insiders that the trust principles are more important than ever.
Mr Gyllenhammar, who is famously robust in dealing with wrongdoing in his boardroom roles, says the system acts as a safeguard against corruption. “If you talk to business leaders and they don't tend to be naive some say that if you want to do business in the [Persian] Gulf, for example, then you have to accept commissions and the custom is you pay. Well, I'm afraid that is corruption.
“At Volvo I tried to have a corruption-free company, and I think Reuters has a benchmark culture when it comes to other groups and how they behave.”
Mr Gyllenhammar who is also chairman of the European Financial Services Round Table that lobbies Brussels on financial services compares the relative transparency of Reuters' ownership with the lack of progress on the European takeover rules.
“The takeover directive in the European Union has been in the works for 10 years and still isn't agreed on,” he says. “Our structure allows no single shareholder to dominate. My view is that other companies around the world should look at it.”
While protecting Reuters, Mr Gyllenhammar argues that it also acts as a brake on the management, which meets with the trustees and updates them on strategic issues. Similarly, union leaders are able to raise concerns with the Founders Share Company, although they are often referred straight to Tom Glocer, Reuters chief executive. Whether in its business dealings, shareholder structure or news coverage the chairman of the Founders Share Company says the system acts as a defensive mechanism. He cites its roles from monitoring business journalism that, elsewhere, “has become too colourful”, to the need for quality audits and the advantages of a broadly-based group of investors.
“The principles are part of the articles of association at Reuters Group, so the management is bound by them,” according to Mr Gyllenhammar. “We own the principles and are here to defend them. It's real power.”
路透社布下的反收购“毒丸”
在鲁珀特?默多克(Rupert Murdoch)和鲁珀特?麦克斯韦(Robert Maxwell)担任路透社(Reuters)董事的时候，路透社董事会会议的气氛都“非常活跃”，著名的瑞典实业家皮尔?格林汉默(Pehr Gyllenhammar)说。在这家电子信息和媒体集团中，他是唯一比那两位媒体巨头呆的时间更长的经理人。
“他们都给你留下深刻的印象，而且彼此显然是竞争对手，”格林汉默回忆说，“麦克斯韦想做一号人物，并让所有人知道了这一点；默多克要沉默一些，他最终实现了自己的抱负，麦克斯韦却过世了。”
但是，格林汉默曾协助挫败了默多克收购路透社的野心。格林汉默曾任沃尔沃(Volvo)首席执行官。1993年，沃尔沃与雷诺(Renault)合并失败，格林汉默随即离开了瑞典。
10多年前，新闻集团(News Corporation)董事长默多克被迫减持在路透社的股份，将持股比例从23%降至15%以下，并最终全部卖出，因为有人担心他会发起敌意收购。
“这是我们唯一一次行使职权，”格林汉默先生说。他说的“我们”，是指几乎不为人知、但却非常重要的路透创办人股份公司(Reuters Founders Share Company)。
这个笨拙的名称掩盖了一个企业内设的机关。路透创办人股份公司于1984年路透上市之后成立，主要目的是捍卫路透社新闻服务的公正与独立。这一新闻服务由保罗?祖尼斯?路透男爵(Baron Paul Julius Reuter)创建。
这些原则可追溯到二战期间，允许该创办人公司阻止任何“单个利益体、集团或派系”在路透建立控股权。
在过去8年中，格林汉默先生一直是路透创办人股份公司的董事长，他否认这个权力很大的实体只是为阻碍收购而设立的。
格林汉默先生的说法是：“这不是一颗毒丸，它要高尚得多。”如今，格林汉默先生更出名的身份是英国最大保险公司英杰华(Aviva)的董事长。“它不是用来防止一个商业行动，而是用来保护路透运营原则的。”
尽管格林汉默先生言之凿凿，但一些观察家仍然认为，该机制完全就是个并购“阻断器”。
路透创办人股份公司的董事会成员被称为信托人，任何投资者在上市公司路透中持股超过15%后，信托人都可以迫使这些投资者减持股份。他们还可以要求召开特别股东大会，阻止任何投资者获得公司控制权的企图。控制权的定义是在公司年会上征集到30%的投票权。
路透社在年报中表示：“对普通股权益的限制，以及创办人股份有限公司的特别投票权，可被描述为反收购预防措施。在这个意义上，这些措施可以防止有人要求对路透社集团(Reuters Group)的控制权。”
其它公司也采用了毒丸计划，颇有讽刺意味的是，这其中也包括新闻集团。这家由鲁珀特?默多克领导的美国集团去年采用了一个毒丸计划，以防止有线电视企业家约翰?马龙(John Malone)逐渐控股该公司。新闻集团对马龙先生的担忧一如路透社过去对默多克先生的担忧。
3年前这种担忧再度浮出水面。当时路透社的股价跌至令人担心的低点。结果，也许是创办人股份有限公司这一结构挽救了公司，令公司免于成为意图收购的目标。
但格林汉默先生坚持表示，设置这些权力是为了保护路透社这家上市公司的公正。在入主路透创办人股份公司前，格林汉默先生在路透社董事会当了13年董事。他警告说，如果现任管理层未能坚守5条核心原则，就可动用那些权力来对付他们。“如果任何新股东能提出令人信服理由，说明他们将遵守这些原则，并根据这些原则行事，那么他们就不会被阻拦。但如果存在威胁，那我们就会采取行动。”目前还是Rothschild公司欧洲区副董事长的这位商界老手认为，其他公司或许也能效仿这一体系。
“目前英国的公司丑闻满天飞，(有关公司治理的)坎伯理准则(Cadbury Code)出了第四版，且各种准则遍布欧洲各地，在这种环境下，任何商业机构都会盯上我们，说这家公司自上世纪40年代起就一直遵循一套原则。”
这些原则由一个信托人组成的委员会监督执行，其中包括《纽约时报》前执行主编约瑟夫?列里维尔德(Joseph Lelyvel)、贝塔斯曼(Bertelsmann)前首席执行官马克?沃斯纳(Mark W?ssner)，以及曾担任丹麦外交部长的乌夫?埃勒曼-延森(Uffe Ellemann-Jensen)。这14位信托人中，有两人是欧洲人权法庭(European Court of Human Rights)的法官。全体信托人组成了一个公司治理委员会和一个“防御”委员会来监控路透上市公司。格林汉默先生将这一制衡机制与2003年英国广播公司(BBC)出现的明显恐慌进行了对照。当时英国广播公司遭到政府指责，称其有关对伊拉克开战理由(尤其是据称伊拉克拥有大规模杀伤性武器)的报道歪曲事实、并不准确。
“有一位英国广播公司的著名记者曾任职于路透，他说如果BBC当初采用了我们的原则，这一切就不会发生，”格林汉默先生，“然而，它们面临了一桩丑闻，董事会主席和总裁都被迫辞职。”
英国广播公司遭遇了困难，而同一时期《纽约时报》(New York Times)、《今日美国》(USA Today)与哥伦比亚广播公司新闻网(CBS News)都出了令自己难堪的编辑错误，并导致一些人辞职。这些挫折，加上安然(Enron)和世通(WorldCom)的垮台等不相干的丑闻，令路透社的内部人士确信，那些信托原则比以往任何时候都更加重要。
作为多家公司的董事，格林汉默先生有着擅长处理错误行为的名声。他表示，该体系就像是防范腐败的警卫。“如果你与企业领导人交谈，他们通常满现实。有人说，如果你想在比如说(波斯)湾地区做生意，那你就必须认同付回扣的做法，而且按惯例得由你来付。好吧，恐怕这就是腐败。”
“在沃尔沃，我试图杜绝公司中的腐败现象，我认为就其它集团以及它们的行为方式而言，路透社的文化可以作为参照基准。”
格林汉默先生也是欧洲金融服务圆桌论坛(European Financial Services Round Table)的主席，这个论坛专门就金融服务事务对欧盟进行游说。他把路透社在所有权上的相对透明度与欧盟在收购法规上的进展缓慢进行了对比。
“欧盟的收购指令已经筹划了10年，至今还没有达成一致，”他说，“我们的结构不允许一股独大。我的看法是，世界各地的其它公司都应该关注这个结构。”
格林汉默先生表示，在保护路透社的同时，该结构还对管理层起到约束作用，管理层可与信托人会晤，让他们了解最新的战略性问题。类似的，工会领导人也可以向创办人股份有限公司提出疑虑，尽管通常是让他们去找路透社首席执行官汤姆?格罗瑟(Tom Glocer)。格林汉默先生说，不管是在业务往来、股东结构，还是新闻报道上，这个体系都可以充当防御机制。他指出，该系统可发挥种种作用，比如从监督商业新闻业务――其它地方的这一业务“已经变得太花了”――到满足质量审计的需要等，此外还能为范围广泛的投资者群体带来好处。
“这些原则是路透社集团公司章程的一部分，因此管理层受其约束，”格林汉默先生说，“我们拥有原则，并随时准备捍卫它们。它是真正的力量。”
