Of the many worries facing shareholders, damage from incompetent or irresponsible management is a big one. CEOs can hurt a company simply by steering it the wrong way, diversifying too much or too little, expanding at the wrong times, and so on. Occasionally, the damage is much more intentional and wanton. In this article, we'll look back at a prime example of corporate kleptocracy – the case of RJR Nabisco.

The DoldrumsIn the 1980s, tobacco giant RJ Reynolds was despairing about its future as a one-product company. Cigarettes were known to be cancerous and litigation was getting costly. CEO J. Tylee Wilson was searching for another business to merge with; a company to offer an upside to counteract the company's expected declines. The best candidate, according to Wall Street advisors, was Nabisco Brands. Nabisco Brands was already a merged company created in 1981 by joining food companies Standard Brands and Nabisco. The CEO of the original Standard Brands, F. Ross Johnson, had managed to stay on through the merger and wrest control of the new entity. (We provide four clues that help determine whether an executive has what it takes, read Is Your CEO Street Savvy?)

Johnson had established a clear M.O. despite only holding the CEO post at two companies. His first moves after getting charge at Standard Brands and later Nabisco Brands was to ingratiate himself with the board of directors, increase management's compensation and then pile on the perks. The CEO compensation for Standard Brands tripled when he took over and company jets and jaguars soon followed. The same thing happened with Nabisco Brands, with Johnson seizing the reins within three years of the merger.

A Record-Breaking MergerIn spring of 1985, Wilson and Johnson met to discuss a friendly merger in which Wilson would become chairman of the new company. Johnson disliked his proffered job of vice chairman and asked for the post of president and chief operating officer (COO) as well. Wilson countered by suggesting Johnson could have the top post when Wilson retired two years later. In the end, Wilson was more desperate for the deal than Johnson. Wilson had to pay a high premium for Nabisco, and Johnson pushed through demands for various perks and the two posts in a sweetheart deal that saw RJ Reynolds acquire Nabisco Brands for $4.9 billion. It was a record setting-merger for non-oil companies.

The price of the merger was increased when the ubiquitous Ivan Boesky bought Nabisco stock prior to the merger, signaling the takeover to the market and making a tidy sum in the process – it was one of the trades that fueled the investigation into his seeming prescience and resulted in his conviction for insider trading. As for the newly christened RJR Nabisco, the two CEOs soon found that they had very different views. Wilson was very cost conscious and Johnson spent freely. While Wilson wondered what to do with his brash, spendthrift of a partner, Johnson got close to the board of directors and managed to open a rift between them and Wilson. It took him less than a year to wrest the top post from Wilson. (Look at some of the landmark incidents of insider trading, read Top 4 Most Scandalous Insider Trading Debacles.)

The Party Begins and EndsWith RJR Nabisco, Johnson had a much bigger larder to raid. The salaries and perks of the management quickly grew to the outsized proportions. When Johnson ran into troubles with the new board chairman for his growing expense, Johnson managed to get the chairman switched and began filling key positions with sympathetic friends. (CEOs, CFOs, presidents and vice presidents: learn how to tell the difference, see The Basics Of Corporate Structure and Governance Pays.)

Although Johnson and his buddies were having a grand time, RJR Nabisco was back in the doldrums. It took a huge hit in the 1987 crash, dipping from around $70 to the low $40s. Johnson believed that the bad publicity of tobacco products was holding back the profitable foods division of the company. He started putting feelers out for merger candidates and asking investment bankers for ideas. Several suggested a leveraged buyout (LBO) with shareholders taking up the tobacco business and Johnson and his management taking Nabisco private. Johnson initially didn't like this idea because owing money to a bank would bring oversight, thus forcing him to rein in his rapacious spending habits.

Meeting with RaidersIn 1988, Johnson met informally with Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts, better known as KKR. Henry Kravis talked about the benefits of LBOs, including the tightening of management and improved efficiency. Again, Johnson didn't want to lose his perks. After talking with KKR, however, some of the benefits of an LBO, namely more money, stuck in Johnson's mind.

When RJR Nabisco's price continued to languish, Johnson began buying back shares to try and force up the price – spending $1.1 billion in the process – but the price dropped back down again. Johnson feared the low stock price would attract corporate raiders, so he began building defenses. In the meantime, Kravis started to wonder about Johnson's lack of follow up on his proposal. Kravis started to run numbers on taking over RJR Nabisco. (Shareholder activists can have a big impact on a company's operations. These battles turned ugly as management lost control, check out Nasty Shareholder Activist Battles And Why They Happened.)

In PlayJohnson was actually working with Shearson Lehman Hutton to bring a completed LBO to the meeting to avoid bringing the company into play, where it would be auctioned to the highest bidder. Johnson's terms for the LBO were control of the board and 20% of the stock for himself and seven managers – stock that was projected to be worth almost $3 billion in five years – without putting up any money.

Johnson's greed stunned everyone involved, including the investment banking team that was working with him. Johnson offered a buyout at $75 a share or $17.6 billion. The board refused outright – they were shocked to find a black knight on their own payroll. The board issued a press release, putting the company into play while they considered their options.

Battle for Oreos and CamelsKKR swooped in and offered the board $90 a share, touching off a bidding war. KKR wanted the company but they didn't want Johnson anymore. Johnson's team upped its bid to $92. The board decided that the company would sell itself to the highest bidder. KKR raised its bid to $94, $68 in cash and $26 funded by Drexel junk bonds. Johnson's team bid $100 a share, $90 in cash and $10 in other securities. (Learn the motives that drive companies into the arms of an acquire Why Owners Sell A Business.)

Last minute, First Boston came in as a grey knight with a bid of $118, causing the board to extend its deadline for a deal, but the First Boston bid turned out to be poorly financed. Johnson upped his bid to $101 and KKR bid $109. Board members and a watching public had turned against Johnson by this time. Johnson tried $112, $84 in cash and the rest in securities, but KKR's deal was chosen at $3 less. The justification was that the superior financing of the KKR bid would involve less gutting of the company to pay off debts, but many saw it as a final snub at Johnson. The $25 billion deal set yet another record non-oil takeover and the biggest LBO ever. Johnson was ousted by KKR but still got his record-making $30 million golden parachute.

An Uncertain EndAfter the deal, RJR Nabisco continued to get juggled about. KKR cut jobs and divisions, spinning the international tobacco business off to Japan Tobacco. The domestic parts, both tobacco and food, were separated and recombined in a shuffle involving almost as many players as the original dance - even Carl Icahn was in there. As it turned out, RJR Nabisco represented the height of the LBO craze even as it highlighted corporate excesses. It was the last big LBO of the decade and that kind of corporate restructuring has largely fallen out of favor since. Corporate kleptocracy, in contrast, doesn't look like it will ever vanish completely. (Do you want your company to sandbag or greenmail? Welcome to the dramatic world of mergers and acquisitions, check out The Wacky World Of M&As.)

Related Articles
  1. Investing

    Hostile Takeover

    A hostile takeovers is an unfriendly acquisition attempt by a company or raider that is strongly resisted by the management and the board of directors of the target firm. Learn more about the ...
  2. Options & Futures

    Use Options to Hedge Against Iron Ore Downslide

    Using iron ore options is a way to take advantage of a current downslide in iron ore prices, whether for producers or traders.
  3. Home & Auto

    Understanding Rent-to-Own Contracts

    They can work for you or against you. Here's how to negotiate a fair one.
  4. Stock Analysis

    Net Neutrality: Pros and Cons

    The fight over net neutrality has become an amazing spectacle. But at its core, it's yet another skirmish in cable television's war to remain relevant.
  5. Home & Auto

    Avoiding the 5 Most Common Rent-to-Own Mistakes

    Pitfalls that a prospective tenant-buyer could encounter on the road to purchase – and how not to stumble into them.
  6. Home & Auto

    Renting vs. Owning: Which is Better for You?

    Despite the conventional wisdom, renting might make more financial sense than you think.
  7. Active Trading Fundamentals

    The Biggest Private Equity Firms in Los Angeles

    Learn why Los Angeles is a thriving market for private equity, and identify the five largest private equity firms operating in the city.
  8. Investing

    Carl Icahn Biography

    Carl Icahn is a New-York-based investor and one of the 50 richest men in the world, with more than $20 billion in personal assets. He is known for his brash style as a corporate raider and as ...
  9. Investing Basics

    Explaining Options Contracts

    Options contracts grant the owner the right to buy or sell shares of a security in the future at a given price.
  10. Home & Auto

    When Are Rent-to-Own Homes a Good Idea?

    Lease now and pay later can work – for a select few.
RELATED TERMS
  1. Hostile Takeover Bid

    An attempt to take over a company without the approval of the ...
  2. Hostile Bid

    A specific type of takeover bid that is presented directly to ...
  3. Hostile Takeover

    The acquisition of one company (called the target company) by ...
  4. Implied Volatility - IV

    The estimated volatility of a security's price.
  5. Plain Vanilla

    The most basic or standard version of a financial instrument, ...
  6. Normal Profit

    An economic condition occurring when the difference between a ...
RELATED FAQS
  1. What are some prominent examples of hostile takeovers?

    One of the most prominent hostile takeovers of all time was the leveraged buyout (LBO) of RJR Nabisco by investment bank ... Read Full Answer >>
  2. What was the most notable hostile takeover of all time?

    The leveraged buyout of cigarette and food giant RJR Nabisco was called the “granddaddy of all takeovers” by a 1990 New York ... Read Full Answer >>
  3. How does a forward contract differ from a call option?

    Forward contracts and call options are different financial instruments that allow two parties to purchase or sell assets ... Read Full Answer >>
  4. How long does it take to execute an M&A deal?

    Even the simplest merger and acquisition (M&A) deals are challenging. It takes a lot for two previously independent enterprises ... Read Full Answer >>
  5. What happens to the shares of stock purchased in a tender offer?

    The shares of stock purchased in a tender offer become the property of the purchaser. From that point forward, the purchaser, ... Read Full Answer >>
  6. What are some common accretive transactions?

    The term "accretive" is most often used in reference to mergers and acquisitions (M&A). It refers to a transaction that ... Read Full Answer >>

You May Also Like

Trading Center
×

You are using adblocking software

Want access to all of Investopedia? Add us to your “whitelist”
so you'll never miss a feature!