Bruce Wasserstein and Vanity Fair

Buce Wasserstein, the chairman and CEO of the investment bank Lazard died six months agao. The May 2010 issue of VANITY FAIR has a story on Wasserstein by William Cohan, the author of a book about the history of Lazard.

It appears that Wasserstein was rushed to a hospital on Sunday, October 11, experiencing heart palpitations. According to Cohan's sources, he was put on life support immediately upon arrival, and the prognosis was always grim. It was "just a question of how long he would hang on," Cohan tells us. Death came that Wednesday, October 14.

Some of the people Wasserstein interviewed said this death was a shock, because their friend had seemed very healthy only recently. Toby Myerson said that he had seen Wasserstein at a birthday party four months before, and Wasserstein looked "healthy ... very engaged and engaging." Others, though, suggested that this was not such a surprise, because Wasserstein had been very sick (though closed-mouthed about it) for years. In February 2006, he disappeared from Lazard's offices, not returning until that May. When he did return, said an anonymous souyrce, "He was bruised all over his body. He looked like a guy who had been going through chemo or something."

Here's a link to the full story.

Two points stand out for me. One is simply that Wasserstein was (understandable) unhappy with the nickname that Forbes gave him in 1989, "Bid 'Em Up Bruce." The snap behind the nickname was that Wasserstein used "psychological bullying" to get his clients to 'win' auctions in the margers-and-acquisitions context by bidding more than made sense, more than they could really afford. Robert Campeau's 'victory' in a bidding war in which Wasserstein had advised him turned out to be especially pyrrhic.

The other, related, point is the ambiguity as to whether Wasserstein's last deal fit that bad old pattern. He advised Kraft in the early steps that led to its purchase of Cadbury. Cohan quotes Antonio Weis, head of investment banking at Lazard, who spoke up for his deceased boss on this point. "Bruce's last deal was specifically designed to acquire the target company at the lowest possible price. So it was the exact oppositre of what is alleged."

Bruce Wasserstein, RIP.

Marc Dreier

For those of you who may have forgotten, Marc Dreier was the big finance-world criminal who made headlines just before Bernie Madoff. Madoff's scheme was so large that it drove everything else of that genre out of the minds of the personally unaffected, but the Dreier case has its own charm.

There is, of course a wiki article if you'd like a more detailed refresher course.

Very briefly, though, Dreier was a lawyer who duped a lot of hedge funds into buying forged notes, many of them supposedly issued by Solow Realty, a corporate vehicle of a real-enough client of Dreier's, developer Sheldon Solow.

But he also forged notes supposedly issued by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. This turned out to be a bit of overreaching. People who moved in Solow's circles knew Dreier and vice versa, and they could take it on faith Dreier was speaking for Solow as to the notes. But the OTPP? The would-be note buyers wanted re-assurance. And so it was that it was at OTPP headquarters in Toronto that the scheme reached its bizaare denoument on Tuesday, December 2.

This comes to mind because Bryan Burrough has a fine article on the Dreier case in the November issue of VANITY FAIR. what I especially like about the Burrough story is his discussion of the long and tangled Solow/Dreier relationship.

Dreier was often Solow's pitbull. When Solow pointed out a target, Dreier's fangs could sink truly and deeply. There was for example a tussle with Peter Morton of the Hard Rock Cafe chain, in which a judge dismissed the third Drier/Solow lawsuit on point, saying Solow has "had so many bites at the apple, [he] has swallowed the core."

And there was a dispute between Solow and another Manhattan developer, Peter Kalikow. The Solow/Dreier campaign of vindictiveness at Kalikow's expense led to some positively sputtering language by Judge Burton Lifland, who described Dreier's actions as "tacky, shabby, base, low, malicious, petty, nasty, unsavory" and other like descriptors.

That's laying it out for us, your honor.

Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair's current issue has Madonna on the cover, holding a globe. Some explanatory matter inside says the editors think she looks like a "sexy 21st century Atlas."

As Jon Stewart might say, "nnnnn ... not so much." The pose has her holding the globe not on her shoulders but a bit lower, literally against her spine, so that it appears that the globe is in the midst of an invisible stream that is about to wash her and it forward out of the frame of the picture, in the reader/viewer's direction.

But let's look into the magazine's contents. For this issue also contains an article by Michael Wolff, called The War on the Times. Wolff discusses recent challenges to the Sulzberger family's hegemony over the corporate structure of the NYT, challenges that I have also discussed on this blog.

For the most part, Wolff just seems mean-spirited on the subject, as if he believes that the Sulzberger-guided institution is one of enormous value to the public welfare, and he can best serve that welfare by bad-mouthing real or potential threats thereto.

"The folks at the threatening hedge funds ... certainly have no legitimacy beyond their money. (Besides waging nuisance proxy fights, and having founded a sputtering dotcom company, Galloway, the front man for the charge, seems, mainly, to teach a business-school class at N.Y.U.) The Times's initial reaction was to treat them with the contempt they seem to deserve."

And much more in that line.

What kind of "legitimacy" does one need to own an interest in a newspaper? And is teaching a business-school class at the Stern School of Business, New York University, some kind of resume stain?

Galloway's dotcom company, RedEnvelope (OTC: REDE) has had its "sputterings," but has proven more resilient than many of the other species of that particular genus.

Galloway didn't seek to takeover the Times. He sought a voice. And he won that particular fight, getting a seat on the board. Will he be a destructive force from within, as Wolff seems to suggest? Why would he do that? because he thinks he has too much money?

The whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense. But hey, that's show biz.

Bracewell & Giuliani

The latest issue of Vanity Fair has a feature story about former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Some of the buzz about this issue has suggested that this story, written by Michael Shnayerson, would be a great take-down piece. A serious blow to Rudy's candidacy.

It isn't. Frankly, I got the sense reading it that Shnayerson was flailing about a bit, trying to score a solid punch and missing.

Example: In 2005 (as the story accurately reports), Giuliani became a partner at what had been the Texas law firm of Bracewell & Patterson. It's now, of course, the Texas & New York law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani.

By the time Giuliani put his name on the door, Bracewell had become, we're told, "the go-to law firm for major polluters in oil and gas as well as coal companies."

Shocking. Until you give it a second's thought. A prominent Texas law firm represents oil and gas companies? Such companies, when accused of environmental violations, hire lawyers to defend them? What's the shocker there again?

Then we get a long graf re-hashing the Citgo connection. No "mini-scoop" here. This stuff was all thoroughly vented months ago. Yes, Citgo is run by the Venezuelan state, which is currently run by Hugo Chavez, a nasty piece of work.

"Bracewell & Giuliani [has] been happy to take Chavez' money," our intrepid reporter breathlessly informs us.

Would he be happier -- would he want us to be happier -- if B&G hadn't taken Chavez' money? Suppose they had represented Citgo's interests in the US for free, and called it their pro bono work for the year. Feel better?

Either way: they're in the business of advocacy, aren't they? A law firm can, without any shadow to its reputation, defend a serial killer -- for money if he can pay it. Why is it hard to believe that a law firm can work for the interests of a company that does a lot of business in the US, that is run by the government of a foreign state.

The fact that I say "big whoop" to this doesn't make me partial to Giuliani. (Although, for the sake of full disclosure, I might as well admit that a couple of the lawyers who work in Bracewell & Giuliani -- NOT the candidate -- have been valuable sources to me in explaining some legal issues pertinent to stories I've been working on.) I'm not partial to Rudy as a candidate at all -- indeed (a) I don't believe in politics, (b) even if I did believe in politics, it would be a sort of politics that would involve the rejection of the two major parties, and (c) even thinking within the box of those two parties, the only candidate who makes even a smidgen of sense to me is Ron Paul. So there, for Rudy.

Still, I recognize a flailing boxer in the ring when I see one. And that is the figure Mr. Shnayerson cuts.