Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Richard Breeden Turns His Attention to H&R Block (HRB)

Breeden Capital will nominate three candidates for election to the Board of Directors of H&R Block Inc. (NYSE: HRB) at the company's 2007 annual meeting. The 2007 annual meeting is scheduled for September 6, 2007.

Richard Breeden, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Breeden Capital Management LLC, will seek election to the H&R Block board, along with two other individuals to be announced by Breeden Partners later this week.

Mr. Breeden said, "While H&R Block is widely known for its market-leading tax preparation services, its efforts to diversify into activities including subprime mortgage lending, securities brokerage and banking have resulted in substantial lost shareholder value. H&R Block's stock has significantly underperformed the S&P 500 Index for the five years ended June 15, 2007. As shareholders, we believe that five years is long enough to wait for H&R Block to achieve attractive returns for shareholders. This board needs fresh perspectives and new energy, which we intend to supply, to tackle the company's problems."

Breeden Capital, run by former SEC-chief Richard Breeden, recently targeted Applebee's (Nasdaq: APPB), winning a board seat and pushing for a strategic review, which the company said has yielded several non-binding, preliminary proposals to acquire the company.

Other stocks in Breeden portfolio are ACCO Brands Corporation (NYSE: ABD), Alexander & Baldwin Inc. (Nasdaq: ALEX), Applebee's (Nasdaq: APPB), Bausch & Lomb Inc. (NYSE: BOL), Helmerich & Payne (NYSE: HP), Hillenbrand Industries (NYSE: HB), Steris Corp. (NYSE: STE), and Warnaco Group (Nasdaq: WRNC).

Labels: , , ,

Monday, August 18, 2008

Breeden Capital Boosts Stake in Hill-Rom Holdings (HRC) to 5.25% - 13D

In a 13D filing on Hill-Rom Holdings (NYSE: HRC), Richard Breeden's Breeden Capital disclosed a 5.25% stake (3,278,409 shares) in the company. Which is up from the 2,478,618 share stake held at the quarter ended 6/30/08. A 13D indicates a possible activist investment.

In a pretty standard disclosure, Breeden didn't make any direct requests on the company, but said they will monitor the investment and may be in contact with members of management or the board or others about the investment.

Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. provides medical technologies and related services for the health care industry.

Breeden Capital is a Greenwich, CT-based hedge fund founded by Richard Breeden, a former SEC chief turned activist investor. Richard Breeden was elected as Chairman of H&R Block (NYSE: HRB) after successfully pushing for changes at the embattled tax preparer.

Labels: ,

Friday, March 09, 2007

Applebee's and Breeden Capital Fail To Reach Agreement

Applebee's (Nasdaq: APPB) announced today that negotiations with activist hedge fund Breeden Capital have failed to produce an agreement after Breeden rejected the company's offer of two board seats. Breeden Capital has been seeking four seats.

In February, Applebee's Board of Directors formed a committee of independent directors to explore strategic alternatives for enhancing shareholder value, including a possible recapitalization or sale.

Jack Helms, co-chairman of Applebee's Strategy Committee said, "we continue to hope that Mr. Breeden will work with us, and not against us, in improving shareholder value."

Breeden Capital, run by former SEC-chief Richard Breeden, has been after the company for months related to its poor performance. Breeden has also criticized executive pay at the restaurant chain.

Breeden has yet to respond to today's news.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 11, 2008

Richard Breeden's Next Target: Steris Corp. (STE)

In a 13D filing after the close Friday on Steris Corp. (NYSE: STE), Richard Breeden's Breeden Capital disclosed a 6.72% stake (4,259,973 shares) in the company. The firm held 2,621,973 shares of STE at the quarter ended September 30, 2007.

Breeden's firm noted that their firm has had conversation with the company's management and non-executive chairman and plan to continue to pursue ongoing discussions. The firm said discussions to date have related primarily to the business, financial performance, capital allocation, operations, strategic plans and disclosure practices of the Company. The firm said they may also communicate with the board of directors and/or other shareholders from time to time with respect to operational, strategic, financial or governance matters, or otherwise encourage actions that the Reporting Persons believe in their discretion will enhance shareholder value.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Breeden Partners Confirms 5.2% Stake in Applebee's (APPB), Says Company is Underperforming

Breeden Partners issued a press released discussing their recently acquired 5.2% stake in Applebee's International, Inc. (Nasdaq: APPB) as we noted earlier in from the 13D filing with the SEC.

Breeden said, "Breeden Partners believes that Applebee's is a fundamentally strong and vibrant business that is currently valued significantly below its potential. The Company operates successful restaurants and has a superb network of franchise owners. Breeden Partners is very pleased to join the Applebee's Neighborhood. However, Breeden Partners also believes that Applebee's has not paid adequate attention to shareholder interests in recent years, and that its share price suffers from poor decisions on allocation of capital to company-owned restaurants and real estate holdings with low returns, as well as from high corporate general and administrative costs and certain undesirable governance and compensation practices.

We hope to assist the company in understanding the imperative to reduce corporate overhead and to use capital that can be freed up by the sale of non-earning assets like real estate and by refranchising company-owned restaurants to repurchase shares at today's low values. Now that the company has finally put in place a new management team, we believe that it needs to move with a sense of urgency to take advantage of opportunities for improving its return to shareholders. The reforms we suggest will help Applebee's become as good at delivering value to its shareholders as it already is in delivering great value to its casual dining customers. The goal of all concerned should be to build a great company, not just great restaurants."

Breeden Partners is managed by Breeden Capital Management in Greenwich, Connecticut. Both Breeden Partners and Breeden Capital Management were founded by former SEC Chairman Richard C. Breeden and a group of partners who work actively in the business.

Sign-Up for E-Mail Alerts on APPB (Free) and 13D Filings (Premium Only)

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Breeden Scores Nice Win in Applebee's (APPB) Fight

Former SEC-Cheif turned activist investors, Richard Breeden, scored a nice win today on Applebee's (Nasdaq: APPB). Not only did Breeden and another Breeden nominee Laurence Harris get on the board, but the company announced that its strategic reivew process has yielded several non-binding, preliminary proposals to acquire the company.

Breeden paid about $19.90 per share for his 3.9 million share stake. Today the stock is trading at $26.88. That's a 35% gain!

Other stocks in Breeden portfolio are Alexander & Baldwin Inc. (Nasdaq: ALEX), Bausch & Lomb Inc. (NYSE: BOL), H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB), Helmerich & Payne (NYSE: HP), Steris Corp. (NYSE: STE), Walter Industries Inc. (NYSE: WLT) and Warnaco Group (Nasdaq: WRNC).

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Breeden Capital Discloses 5.24% Stake in Applebee's International (APPB)

In a 13D filing on Applebee's International, Inc. (Nasdaq: APPB) this morning, Breeden Capital Management disclosed a 5.24% stake (3.9 million share) in the company. There is no other record showing a stake owned by the investment firm.

In the filing, Breeden said they believe that management and/or the board of directors, as appropriate, should devote significantly greater effort to enhancing shareholder returns through actions including, without limitation, re-franchising a substantial number of Company-owned and operated restaurants, significantly reducing capital expenditures, disposing of non-core assets including the Company's real estate holdings, and increasing cash returned to shareholders. Breeden Capital also intend to advocate modifications of certain governance and executive compensation practices that they believe are not in the best interests of shareholders and the creation of shareholder value.

Breeden Capital was started by Richard Breeden, who ran the Securities and Exchange Commission from 1989 to 1993.

Sign-Up for E-Mail Alerts on APPB (Free) and 13D Filings (Premium Only)

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Breeden Capital Boosts Stake in Zale Corp (ZLC) to 17.66%

In an amended 13D filing this morning on Zale Corporation (NYSE: ZLC), Richard Breeden's Breeden Capital disclosed a 17.66% stake (7,875,839 shares) in the company. This is up from the 15.85% stake (7,070,839 shares) the firm disclosed in a recent filing.

In the firm's original 13D filing on the Zale's investment, Breeden said they have had conversations with the Company’s management, although the nature of those talks were not disclosed.
Breeden's has aggressively built up its stake in Zales. In the original filing in September, the firm showed a 3,784,639 shares position. That position now stands at 7,875,839 shares.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Citadel LP Bumps Its Stake in Breeden Activist Target Zale (ZLC)

Things heating up at Zale Corporation (NYSE: ZLC)?

From the 13G section of our main site:

"In a 13G filing this morning on Zale Corporation (NYSE: ZLC), Ken Griffin's Citadel LP disclosed a 5.31% stake (2,605,739 shares) in the company. The firm held 830,091 shares of ZLC at the quarter ended June 30, 2007. A 13G indicates a 'passive investment'.

Interestingly, two other notable hedge funds, SAC Capital and Breeden Capital, recently disclosed new 5%+ stakes in the jewelry retailer. Mega-hedge fund SAC, which is run by Steve Cohen, disclosed a 5.1% 'passive' stake in ZLC on 09/17. Breeden Capital, run by former SEC chief Richard Breeden, disclosed a 7.72% 'active' stake on 09/17. Breeden noted past talks with management and said they may conduct future talks.

According to Stockpickr.com, Citadel Investment Group is a $20 billion dollar Chicago-based hedge fund founded by billionaire trader Kenneth C. Griffin, and is one of the world's largest hedge funds. The firm is known for its daily trading volume, which amounts to 1-2% of daily trading activity in New York and Tokyo. Link to Citadel Portfolio"

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Breeden Capital Targets Zale Corp (ZLC)

In a 13D filing after the close on Zale Corporation (NYSE: ZLC), Breeden Capital disclosed a 7.72% stake (3,784,639 shares) in the company. The firm noted past talks with management and said they may conduct future talks
Breeden Capital is run by former SEC cheif Richard Breeden. The firm has pushed for changes at Applebee's (Nasdaq: APPB) and H&R Block (NYSE: HRB), winning board seats at both companies.
From the filing:
"Representatives of the Reporting Persons have had conversations with the Company's management. The Reporting Persons intend to continue to pursue ongoing discussions with the Company’s management and potentially with members of the Company’s board of directors. Discussions to date have related primarily to the business, financial performance, operations, strategic plans and disclosure practices of the Company. As a result of the Reporting Persons’ ongoing review and evaluation of the business, they may also communicate with the board of directors and/or other shareholders from time to time with respect to operational, strategic, financial or governance matters, or otherwise encourage actions that the Reporting Persons believe in their discretion will enhance shareholder value."

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Breeden Capital Accumulates 9.71% Stake in ACCO Brands (ABD)

In a 13D filing on ACCO Brands Corporation (NYSE: ABD), Breeden Capital disclosed a 9.71% stake (5.24 million shares). This is up from the 392,500 share stake the firm disclosed at the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

The firm said it intends to continuously review the investment but said at this time they do not have any present plans or proposals that relate to or would result in any of the actions specified in clauses (a) through (j) of the instructions to Item 4 of Schedule 13D.

Breeden Capital, run by former SEC-chief Richard Breeden, recently targeted Applebee's (Nasdaq: APPB), winning a board seat and pushing for a strategic review, which the company said has yielded several non-binding, preliminary proposals to acquire the company.

ACCO Brands is a leader in select categories of branded office products. The company's brands include Day-Timer, Swingline, Kensington, Quartet, GBC, Rexel, and Wilson Jones, among others.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Former SEC Chairman Turns Up Heat on Applebee’s (APPB), Nominates 4 to Board

In an amended 13D filing after the close on Applebee’s International (Nasdaq: APPB), 5.25% holder Breeden Capital, disclosed a letter delivered to the Company, informing the Company of its proposal to nominate four candidates for election to the Board of Directors of the Company at the Company’s 2007 annual meeting of shareholders. The nominees are: Richard C. Breeden, Laurence E. Harris, Steven J. Quamme and Raymond G.H. Seitz.

Mr. Breeden noted in a letter to the Applebee's directors that, over the three years ended December 1, 2006, Applebee's total return to shareholders was 13th worst out of 14 comparable companies. During this time, Applebee's total return was a NEGATIVE 13.4%, costing shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars in lost value. By contrast, competitors like Darden Restaurants (operator of Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants) and California Pizza Kitchen had total returns to shareholders in the same time frame of 99% and 71%, respectively.

Breeden Capital was founded by former SEC Chairman Richard C. Breeden.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Biglari Calls Applebee's (APPB) Deal Undervalued, Attacks SEC-Chief Turned Activist Breeden

There is an interesting situation developing in Applebee's!

Activist investors Sardar Biglari, Chairman and CEO of The Lion Fund, L.P. and Western Sizzlin, said he intends to vote against the acquisition of Applebee's (Nasdaq: APPB) by IHOP (NYSE: IHP), calling the $25.50 per share offer below the fair value of the Company.
Biglari said, "I believe Applebee's board has made a grave mistake in agreeing to an undervalued bid for the entire company. This arrangement is most alarming because new board members promised to protect shareholders' interests, yet they have not verbalized any opposition to this ill-advised transaction." (NOTE: This looks like an attack on ex-SEC Chief turned activist Richard Breeden, who was awarded two board seats in April)
Biglari's group holds 1,019,000 shares of Applebee's, about 1.4%.
If you remember, Biglari was successful in unlocking value at Friendly Ice Cream (AMEX: FRN), which recently announced a deal to be acquired by affiliates of Sun Capital Partners, Inc. for $15.50 per share.
To make matters even more interesting - activist investor Daniel Loeb's Third Point LLC owns a 7.2% stake in IHOP.
A Copy of Sardar Biglari's Press Release:
Sardar Biglari, Chairman and CEO of The Lion Fund, L.P. and Western Sizzlin Corp. (OTC Bulletin Board: WSZL), announced today that he intends to vote against Applebee's International, Inc. (Nasdaq: APPB) proposed transaction with IHOP Corp. (NYSE: IHP).
Mr. Biglari Issued the Following Statement Explaining Why He Intends to Vote Against the Transaction:

I want to express to you my concerns about the possible sale of Applebee's (" Applebee's" or the "Company") to IHOP Corp. ("IHOP") for $25.50 per share in cash, a price which I believe is below the fair value of the Company. I believe Applebee's board has made a grave mistake in agreeing to an undervalued bid for the entire company. This arrangement is most alarming because new board members promised to protect shareholders' interests, yet they have not verbalized any opposition to this ill-advised transaction.

My assertions appear supported by the market's response to the announcement of the proposed transaction. On July 13, 2007, the business day prior to the announcement of the transaction, IHOP's and Applebee's stocks closed at $56.25 and $24.38, respectively. Since that announcement, IHOP's market value has jumped by approximately 16%, or $153 million, to $65.02 per share as of yesterday's close of business. However, the stock price of Applebee's, the acquiree, enjoyed virtually no premium, nay less than 1%, as of yesterday's close of business. Usually, it's the selling company, not the buying one, whose stock price appreciates substantially. Clearly, the proposed acquisition price does not reflect the fair value of Applebee's stock, and the substantial inherent value of Applebee's is being transferred to IHOP shareholders, as evidenced by the sizable increase in IHOP's market capitalization. In other words, we believe that if Applebee's undertook the same initiatives as IHOP has in mind, the appreciation IHOP recently gained would, at the very minimum, shift to Applebee's.
Incidentally, we like IHOP's plan to convert Applebee's to a nearly pure franchising model. The future of Applebee's resides in its franchisees. The decision to refranchise would yield several long-term strategic advantages. Applebee's should be in the franchising business for the cogent reason that it would achieve higher profit margins, assume less risk, and require very little in capital expenditures -- all strategic moves leading to healthy cash flows and high returns on capital. Unfortunately, if the transaction is approved, IHOP's, not Applebee's, shareholders are going to realize the benefits of transforming the Company into an asset-light firm.
We believe the proposed transaction represents a losing exercise for the shareholders of Applebee's. As shareholders, we are obliged to ask how Applebee's can be sold at a mere 5.2% premium over the share price as of the trading day (February 12, 2007) before the Company announced that it was exploring strategic alternatives.

We think Applebee's shareholders would realize considerably more money if the Company carries out the refranchising strategy as outlined by IHOP rather than permitting the sale to go through at the currently agreed price.

As Chairman and CEO of The Lion Fund, L.P. and Western Sizzlin Corp., I represent 1,019,000 shares of the outstanding common stock of Applebee's ( including shares of common stock underlying over-the-counter American-style call options). Because of our discontent with the proposed transaction, we are currently exploring all of our options. This Press Release is not a proxy solicitation.

SOURCE Western Sizzlin Corp.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 26, 2007

Applebee's (APPB) Holder Breeden Partners Express Concerns With Bonus Eligibility Criteria

In an amended 13D filing on Applebee's International Inc. (Nasdaq: APPB), 5% holder Breeden Partners disclosed a new letter sent to the CEO of the company. In the letter the firm expresses concerns with the bonus eligibility criteria adopted by the Compensation Committee. Breeden also offered specific suggestions for improving the company’s compensation policies.

In the letter Breeden said, "Even if the Committee’s charter did not so clearly contemplate it, peer group performance comparisons should be a major part of the compensation formula for all senior officers, as they are across many well-run American businesses. However, despite having the next to worst performance of peer companies as discussed above, the top 5 officers of Applebee’s received over $30 million in total compensation2 over the period 2003-2005. The board’s willingness to award pay without performance seriously weakens the sense of urgency management should feel about the need to cure the company’s performance issues."

Breeden also said Burton Sack should resign from the Committee, saying he operates restaurants that compete with those of the company.

Breeden Partners was founded by former SEC Chairman Richard C. Breeden.

A Copy of the Letter:

Dear Mr. Conant:

I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of Applebee’s International, Inc. on behalf of Breeden Partners, which owns 3.9 million Applebee’s shares, or just over 5% of the company’s outstanding shares. We wish to express our concerns with the bonus eligibility criteria adopted by the Committee, particularly the failure to utilize relative shareholder returns or other measures of competitiveness. In addition, we want to offer specific suggestions for improving the company’s compensation policies.

“In determining the long-term incentive component of CEO compensation, the Executive Compensation Committee will consider, among other matters, the Company’s performance and relative shareholder return...” Charter, Applebee’s Compensation Committee

Given that the slide in the company’s operating performance has now entered its fourth year, it is long past time to start basing senior executive compensation in significant part on “relative shareholder return,” exactly as the Committee’s charter suggests. Unfortunately, the “performance criteria” recently adopted by the Committee under Applebee’s 1999 Management and Executive Incentive Plan and the 2001 Senior Executive Bonus Plan as disclosed in the company’s Form 8-K don’t appear to measure relative performance in any area.

Unless there is detail that has not yet been disclosed, the Committee’s “performance criteria” seem vague and ineffectively targeted. The result is essentially a license to pay anything to anyone, irrespective of actual performance in the marketplace. While I understand that the Committee held back cash bonuses for 2005 on a discretionary basis, the Committee should revise its current criteria formally to put the “performance” back into “performance criteria.” At the same time, other compensation practices should also be changed to eliminate unnecessary expense and unhealthy practices.

Applebee’s Dreadful Performance Record

The starting point for evaluating Applebee’s compensation practices should be the company’s performance, which has been abysmal in recent years. As shown in the table below, during the three years ended December 1, 2006 (immediately before the Committee adopted the current performance metrics), Applebee’s was next to worst in creating total shareholder return (“TSR”) of any publicly traded casual dining company (13th out of 14 companies).

TABLE

No matter which comparison to its peers one chooses to use,1 Applebee’s shareholders have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in value compared to what they would have enjoyed had Applebee’s achieved a competitive level of performance. The Committee’s compensation scheme seems to ignore this reality.

Pay Without Performance

Even if the Committee’s charter did not so clearly contemplate it, peer group performance comparisons should be a major part of the compensation formula for all senior officers, as they are across many well-run American businesses. However, despite having the next to worst performance of peer companies as discussed above, the top 5 officers of Applebee’s received over $30 million in total compensation2 over the period 2003-2005. The board’s willingness to award pay without performance seriously weakens the sense of urgency management should feel about the need to cure the company’s performance issues.

The disastrous performance of Applebee’s share values during the past three years mirrors the steady deterioration that has been going on in Applebee’s operations. Among other important measures, same store sales, margins on company operated restaurants and return on invested capital have all fallen sharply in recent years.

TABLE

While management routinely offers various excuses for the company’s deteriorating performance, serious internal problems appear to underlie Applebee’s lack of results. These issues include:

• a fundamentally flawed growth strategy;

• ineffective leadership during several years prior to Dave Goebel becoming CEO;

• serious ongoing internal weaknesses in marketing and finance;

• poor capital allocation policies;

• excessive overhead costs;

• an ineffective board;

• poor governance practices of various types; and

• inability to make timely decisions of consequence.

The compensation issues at Applebee’s appear to reflect a broader set of problems at the top of the company. Left uncorrected, the deterioration in the company’s fundamentals will continue to cause serious and long-lasting harm to the company. In this situation, the board needs to be using every tool at its disposal, including the compensation system, to correct these problems and ignite growth.

Unhealthy Compensation Practices Encourage Business Failure

In recent years the company has followed several unhealthy compensation practices that ought to be ended.

Personal Use of Corporate Aircraft

On several occasions we have expressed our objection to management to the company’s practice of allowing Applebee’s executives to use corporate aircraft for personal use.

On 29 occasions from April 2006 through January 2007, Applebee’s corporate aircraft flew into and out of Galveston, Texas, where former CEO Lloyd Hill happens to own a beach house. The nearest Applebee’s restaurant is more than 40 miles away. Though Mr. Hill ceased to be CEO in September 2006, company planes continue the Galveston shuttle.

We do not believe that shareholder interests are served by turning corporate aircraft into flying limousines for senior executives’ personal vacations. Just as importantly, this practice is inconsistent with the wholesome “neighborhood values” that Applebee’s claims to embody as a company. I am quite certain that most Applebee’s customers would be shocked to find out that a portion of the cost of their meal goes to fly the former CEO back and forth to his beach house aboard a corporate plane.

Paying Executives’ Income Taxes with Shareholder Funds

It is bad enough that at a time of rapidly shrinking margins the company operates more aircraft than it needs for business purposes. However, the Committee also decided that Applebee’s executives should be able to take personal trips aboard Air Applebee’s as a gratuity, paying absolutely nothing in cost reimbursement for the privilege. In addition to not requiring executives to pay any of the costs for their personal travel, the Committee has taken the extraordinary step of requiring shareholders to pay the income taxes owed by the CEO and other senior executives for their aerial vacation tours.

Grossing up the income of the CEO to cover the income taxes he owes for free flights on company planes is a reprehensible practice, particularly for a company beset by excessive overhead and declining shareholder value. This policy is emblematic of the board’s insensitivity to, and disregard for, the company’s earnings, the interests of its shareholders and basic values.

These senseless practices cannot be justified by the argument your executives have made in response to our criticisms that that the aggregate cost of such waste is not too great. Beyond the fact that little things add up, principles are important irrespective of the dollar amounts. One of those principles is the fundamental importance of using shareholder funds as wisely as possible. Hopefully as the leader of a major American business you would agree that it isn’t just what you pay, but how you pay it that is important to the ethical and business tone within the company.

Turning a blind eye to egregious expenses for the CEO and other senior executives - even if they are relatively modest amounts - sends the wrong message across the Applebee’s system that unjustifiable expenses can be overlooked. A better message would be that everyone from the Chairman on down needs to identify every possible way to improve efficiency and profitability. It is our strong hope that, as conscientious directors, the Committee will terminate the tax gross-up policy forthwith, along with ending personal use of Air Applebee’s altogether. This would send a positive signal to Applebee’s executives as well as to the entire employee base that the board means business in cutting overhead and restoring growth in profitability.

The Committee’s Bonus Criteria

The performance criteria selected by the Committee cover important issues, but they don’t do so as effectively as they should. While I will briefly mention problems with each of the criteria identified in the company’s 8-K filing last month, each of these criteria could benefit from more extended discussion. We would be happy to discuss alternatives with you at any time. In the meantime, everyone would benefit from increased disclosure of the standards and benchmarks for which executives will be held accountable. Frankly we do not see how you can expect any incentive plan to be successful in creating the desired results without a clear articulation of required targets.

At the outset, it is worth noting that four of the five criteria used by the Committee overlap one another to a very significant degree. Turnover, guest preferences and traffic growth are all component parts of restaurant operating profit. Since they are already included in restaurant operating profit, the company doesn’t need to pay twice for reduced employee turnover, guest preferences and traffic growth. These criteria should be deleted altogether.

A. Employee Turnover. As a simplistic matter, it sounds sensible to reward management for reducing employee turnover, and turnover is a significant issue in any food service company. Companies will benefit if they can reduce turnover without incremental cost, though companies will not necessarily benefit if a reduction in turnover is accomplished by overpaying staff, lowering selection standards or retaining poor performers. While the public disclosure does not make clear how this factor (or, indeed, the other criteria) will be applied, it has the potential to encourage faster than necessary wage cost spirals, as well as to create a disincentive to terminate problem or unproductive employees.

B. Guest Preference Opinion Polls. Guest preference opinion polls are another inappropriate bonus factor. For three years same store sales have declined as Applebee’s management lost touch with its customer base. That is the most accurate and relevant measure of guest preferences. However, the Committee has evidently decided to base compensation in part on opinion polls concerning guest preferences rather than actual results. We are all familiar with the fact that opinion polls have built in margins of error that can be significant, and results can easily be manipulated depending on the exact wording of the questions. Since guest preferences are already a component of restaurant operating profit, we would suggest that this element be turned into a minimum eligibility threshold. For example, you could require that the company generate a minimum percentage (such as 3%) annual growth in same store sales in order for executives to be eligible for some percentage (such as 25%) of their overall incentive payments.

C. Traffic Growth. Like reducing turnover, this factor is important to any restaurant chain. However, if traffic growth in restaurants is achieved by heavy discounting through coupons, “two for one” promotions or price reductions that significantly reduce average check size and profit margins, then traffic growth could be counterproductive rather than beneficial. Such discounting is a potentially dangerous practice that causes customers to wait for further discounts before returning to the restaurants, making this a factor that could unwittingly create counterproductive incentives.

D. Restaurant Operating Profit. As long as Applebee’s continues to own nearly 500 company-owned restaurants, the level of restaurant operating margins in these company-owned facilities is obviously critical to Applebee’s financial results. Even if the number of company-owned restaurants is reduced as we have suggested, this factor will still be an important driver of profitability. However, we would suggest that as a factor in computing bonus payments two changes should be made. First, we believe that a specific minimum hurdle rate should be required in order to be eligible for some portion of annual incentive targets.3 Second, we think that this factor should be based on comparative performance among the peer companies.

E. Earnings Per Share. Growth in EPS does not always result in growth in share price. Management can cause EPS to increase through use of accounting conventions and accruals even if operating margins are declining. Of course EPS is also affected heavily by share repurchases, without necessarily reflecting any performance improvement. For these and other reasons we believe that measures such as TSR, Economic Value Added (“EVA”) or free cash flow generation are superior to EPS in measuring financial performance for bonus eligibility purposes.

This is an area where performance comparisons are essential. If Applebee’s increases EPS (or TSR or EVA) but does so at a rate lower than every one of its competitors, then surely incentive compensation would not be warranted. During the past three years 93% of Applebee’s competitors had superior performance in creating shareholder wealth. If that record continues, executives should be replaced, not awarded bonuses.

By eliminating any bonus component comparing Applebee’s performance to that of its competitors, and by failing to set minimum performance targets that can be rigorously measured, the Committee appears to have made it possible for Applebee’s management to earn incentive compensation even if their performance is terrible. We hope that is not what the Committee intended, and that you will act promptly to rectify this problem. We believe in awarding incentive compensation, but we think it should be earned by meeting serious performance targets, not given out as an entitlement. Accountability for performance is essential to avoid pure waste of corporate assets.

Our Suggestions

1. There should be a moratorium on any incentive compensation for any tier one executives so long as TSR remains negative.4 Similarly, incentive compensation should be zero if the company remains in the fourth quartile of relative performance in generating TSR.

2. A large proportion of incentive compensation (such as 50-75%) should be based on relative measures of performance compared to the company’s publicly traded casual dining competitors shown on page two of this letter.5

3. Growth in average per restaurant royalty fees from franchise operations should be included as an incentive target for relevant executives (including the CEO and CFO), since franchisees represent 73% of the company’s system.

4. The level of free cash flow would be a healthy measure for some portion of incentive opportunities, especially for the CEO and CFO.

5. Minimum relative performance in generating TSR or EVA (such as being in the top 20%) should be a significant part of every executive’s target incentive eligibility. All executives should have a vital stake in the company outperforming its peers.

6. Personal use of corporate aircraft should be banned.6 Tax gross-up payments made during the last three years should be repaid to the company.

7. The Committee should retain new compensation consultants. These consultants should not have previously worked for the company, and they should not perform any other work for the company other than advising the Committee.

Compensation Committee Independence

It is a fundamental principle of healthy governance that the board’s compensation committee should be comprised entirely of directors who are independent of management, both in fact and in appearance. Indeed, Applebee’s Proxy Statement for 2006 states “[n]o current or past executive officers or employees of the Company serve on our Executive Compensation Committee.” However, one member of the Committee, Mr. Burton Sack, served as an Executive Vice President from 1994 to 1997. Prior to serving as a senior officer, Mr. Sack sold his franchises to the company for millions of dollars. Today he operates restaurants that compete with those of the company. Given these facts, we believe that Mr. Sack should resign from the Committee.

I would have preferred to write to you privately concerning these issues and our suggestions to improve the company’s practices. However, in the current circumstances our lawyers have advised us that we must publicly file this letter with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Nonetheless, we hope that you will not wait until the 2007 annual meeting before addressing the company’s compensation issues. Please don’t hesitate to call me at (203) 618-0065 at any time to discuss any of the foregoing ideas.

Sincerely,

Richard C. Breeden

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Activist Investors Look Good In Recent Days

A handful of nice wins in recent days for activist investors:

Applebee's International, Inc. (Nasdaq: APPB) said its Board of Directors has formed a committee of independent directors to explore strategic alternatives for enhancing shareholder value, including a possible recapitalization or sale of the company. APPB is an activist target of Richard Breeden.

Ceridian Corporation (NYSE: CEN) announced that its Board of Directors has decided to explore a broad range of strategic alternatives to enhance shareholder value. The Board has retained Greenhill & Co., LLC as its financial advisor and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz as legal advisor to assist in this effort. CEN is an activist target of Bill Ackman's Pershing Square Capital.

WCI Communities, Inc. (NYSE: WCI) retained Goldman Sachs & Co. to assist the Board and senior management in a thorough review of the Company's business plans, capital structure, and growth prospects, with the objective of enhancing the company's value for all of its shareholders. WCI is an activist target of Carl Icahn.

The Home Depot (NYSE: HD) announced that the Company and its board of directors have decided to evaluate strategic alternatives for its HD Supply business, including a possible sale, spin or initial public offering of the business. HD is an activist target of Relational Investors LLC.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Sunterra (SNRR) Holder Chapman Capital Sends Nasty Letter to Company

In a 13D filing after the close yesterday on Sunterra (Nasdaq: SNRR) 8.4% holder Chapman Capital disclosed a vicious letter sent to the company demanding the sale of Sunterra Europe and the company. The stock is reacting positively today on the news. For more 13D filing data check out StreetInsider.com's premium membership.

The Letter:

June 28, 2006

Dear Mr. Gobbay (and the Sunterra Board of Directors):

Chap-Cap Partners II and Chap-Cap Activist Partners (the “Chap-Cap Funds”), advised by Chapman Capital L.L.C., own over 1.6 million common shares, or 8.4%, of Sunterra Corporation (“Sunterra”, the “Company”). To put this ownership level into perspective, our hedge funds’ financial interest in Sunterra’s common equity now exceeds Sunterra’s Board of Directors’ ownership by a factor of 13-to-17. Despite our disproportionate ownership stake in the Company, you would be well advised not to mistake it for a vote of confidence in you (as Sunterra’s “warden”) or the balance of the Board. To the contrary, from the perspective of the likely owner of the largest block of Sunterra’s equity, Chapman Capital believes that Sunterra’s Board of Directors has treated their fiduciary duty of due care worse than they would a timeshare in a construction site Porta Potti.

Sunterra Europe is a malignant cancer ulcerating at Sunterra’s healthy North American business; accordingly, Chapman Capital demands that, at a minimum, this division be sold to the highest bidder. While some players in the European timeshare industry have cleaned up their act since faced with tighter regulation8, higher second home penetration rates combined with increased complexity9 for timeshares sales leave Sunterra Europe’s turnaround plans unrealized. Fortunately, unsubstantiated rumors have circulated that former Sunterra Europe Managing Director10 Richard Harrington,11 who once supervised Mr. Nicholas Benson, has indicated an interest in paying at least $80 million12 in partnership with Club La Costa, 13 for Sunterra Europe and its $80-85 million in calendar 2005 sales.14 Since his departure from Sunterra, Mr. Harrington15 and his business partner Ian Ganney16 have been busy spending the money17 they took out of their 1997 sale of LSI Group Holdings plc to Sunterra.18 Given Sunterra Europe’s negative 3% EBITDA margins (driven by an estimated 75% marketing expense ratio19 and a G&A percentage20 nearly twice as high as various stand alone time share companies21), a sale with a minimum price tag of $80 million (~ $4/share) should project dramatically Sunterra’s equity valuation (currently ~ $8/share), particularly given the enterprise value dilution that attends this resource-draining subsidiary.
__________________
7
Sunterra Board of Directors owned 128,646 shares per Sunterra 2006 Proxy Statement.
8
The UK’s Timeshare Act gives consumer the right to cancel a contract within 14 days of signing an agreement in Britain; UK Timeshare Consumers’ Association (http://www.timeshare.org.uk) Chairman Sandy Gray reportedly takes up to 50 calls/day from worried timeshare owners.
9
“Point swapping,” through exchange networks such as RCI and Interval International, often involves complex options.
10
Mr. Harrington was named Sunterra CEO in January 2000, following the departure of CEO Steven Miller.
11
Mr. Harrington served as co-Chief Executive Officer with Mr. T. Lincoln Morison from January 2000, until Mr. Harrington’s return to Europe later that year. Mr. Morison resigned his position as CEO in October 2000 and assumed the position of Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, serving thereon below T. Taylor Crandall, a money manager for the Bass family of Texas, who was named Interim Chairman in February 2000.
12
Sunterra’s Form 8-K dated June 1, 2006, itself acknowledged that Sunterra had “recently received a preliminary indication of interest to acquire Sunterra Europe” but that it was Sunterra’s “initial view that this offer [did] not reflect the true value of the business …”.
13
Club La Costa (http://www.clublacosta.com), run by Mr. Roy Peires, is a Málaga, Spain-based “holiday club” and outright owner of 21 timeshare resorts; it is linked to US-based Resorts Condominiums Intl. (http://www.rci.com), the Cendant Corporation (NYSE: CD) subsidiary and biggest timeshare exchange network in the world with over 3,700 resort locations in 101 countries; Club La Costa reportedly generates £100 million revenue/year with 20% EBITDA margins.
14
Due to Sunterra Europe’s reorganization announced May 3, 2006, 2007 annual sales of Sunterra Europe are expected to be in the $50-60 million range after losing an estimated 50% of the $60 million of European vacation interest sales.
15
Mr. Harrington, 48, founded an estate agency business in 1980, joined LSI Group Holdings in 1991, and since leaving Sunterra has overseen Harvington Property’s projects including building 750 houses, and the Harvington Business Park in south Wales in a JV with National Power.
16
Mr. Ganney, 54, began his career in law and founded LSI in 1984, marketing timeshares in Spain and Portugal.
17
Mr. Harrington, via acquisition vehicle Citrus Hotels, purchased One Devonshire Gardens in 2002 for a reported £8 million, including the Edinburgh Residence and the 40-bedroom, celebrity-frequented Devonshire Hotel, from Residence International, a timeshare company that reportedly collapsed under £22 of debt in December 2001.
18
Mr. Harrington, as CEO, sold UK-based LSI Group Holdings plc (the leading developer, owner and operator of European multi-site vacation ownership resorts with a points-based system utilizing 11 resorts in England, Spain and Austria) to Sunterra (then known as Signature Resorts) for an estimated $50.6 million in stock and $1 million in cash in September 1997. LSI recorded revenues of approximately $27 million for the year ended December 31, 1996 and was debt free as of March 31, 1997. Andrew Gessow, Sunterra’s co-founder and president, spearheaded this acquisition.
19
Closure rates in the low single digit percentages cause marketing costs per closed timeshare sale to be extraordinarily high.
20
In Sunterra Europe’s quarter ending December 31, 2005, G&A totaled US$3.8 million on US$14 million of vacation interest sales and US$22 million of total sales; the balance of revenues was US$7.3 in management service revenue.
21
Analysts estimate normalized, steady state time share industry EBITDA margins of 10-25% after vacation interest revenue dissipation of 20-25% to CGS, 45-50% to marketing, and 10-15% to G&A.


Chapman Capital further demands that Sunterra, in parallel with the auction of Sunterra Europe, explore the full scale auction of the Company in its entirety, which we estimate to be worth in excess of $14.00 per share in a private market transaction involving a strategic or financial buyer. Various market sources have conveyed burgeoning interest from both strategic and private equity bidders interested in acquiring Sunterra Corporation in its entirety. It is our understanding that such potential bidders22 believe that, among other value enhancing exercises, they may be able to eliminate duplicative public company and other SG&A expenses that serve as putrid bile currently metabolizing nearly two thirds of an estimated $150 million in Sunterra annual pre-G&A operating income. ILX Resorts Incorporated (AMEX: ILX) and Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (AMEX: SVF, the stock of which has risen 170% in the past year by focusing on local sales centers rather than long-shot free trips to Hawaii) run at pre FAS 152 G&A/Revenue rates of 9-14% despite Sunterra’s massively larger revenues and high end customer base. Full infrastructure in Europe and the United States (where the Las Vegas headquarters location is of questionable judgment) has led to significant and avoidable redundancies, despite Mr. Benson’s biased claims to the contrary.

Sunterra’s post bankruptcy operational and financial turnaround remains praiseworthy, despite the destruction of shareholder value at the hands of Mr. Benson’s intransigent loyalty to the faltering European division. After filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on May 31, 2000, listing $828 million in debts that were overwhelmed into default, Sunterra emerged from bankruptcy on July 29, 2002 with a new $300 million financing package from Merrill Lynch. Then-CEO Nick Benson beamed upon being freed from the shackles of the Bankruptcy Court, “We are now poised to re-establish the company as the global leader in the vacation ownership industry.” To his credit, Sunterra accomplished a near doubling of vacation interest annual sales since filing for bankruptcy, with the number of families owning vacation interests having grown from 260,000 to over 300,000 over the same period.23 Ignoring the plight of Sunterra Europe for the moment, the Company’s industry leading inventory purchase program has led to CGS of approximately 20% (vs. the greater than 45% level in the year of bankruptcy filing), driving higher profits to Sunterra’s bottom line. However, before Mr. Benson takes excessive credit for this Phoenix-like rebirth of Sunterra, it should be noted that Gregory F. Rayburn, a 20-year turnaround veteran and principal of the corporate restructuring advisor Jay Alix & Associates,24 was appointed Sunterra CEO and President on October 11, 2000, and is considered most responsible for restructuring Sunterra into its healthy post-bankruptcy form.

Mr. Benson’s compensation as CEO of Sunterra and former head of flailing Sunterra Europe Group Holdings seems to have no material relationship to this meretricious stewardship of Sunterra’s scare resources. The Company’s owners would be most interested to hear your explanation for why on October 13, 2005, Mr. Benson’s egregiously lavish employment agreement was extended through November 19, 2006. Not only is the up to $1.5 million annual compensation25 an indefensible amount given Sunterra’s $160 million market capitalization, but to include a clause in the letter agreement that obligates Sunterra to elect Mr. Benson to the Board as long as he serves as President and CEO added governance insult to financial injury. Now that Mr. Benson is on “paid administrative leave from all officer positions,” and thus not “serving” in any executive capacity, Chapman Capital demands that Mr. Benson be removed from the Board and placed on unpaid leave immediately. Chapman Capital estimates that $20 million of Sunterra’s $90 million in G&A could be discharged without materially impacting associated revenues, starting with cutting Mr. Benson’s $750,000 annual base salary (re-signed in late 2005), and $520,000-$750,000 cash bonus, itself formulaically tied to various statistics that may include but certainly do not emphasis Sunterra’s share price. As if Mr. Benson’s cash compensation was not enough to compensate him for failing to cure Sunterra Europe, in FY2005, the Board ornamented Mr. Benson’s wallet with $997,500 in restricted stock awards.26 Moreover, we suspect that Sunterra has been able to utilize the relatively flexible GAAP cost accounting to bury some of “Benson and Co.’s” lifestyles of the rich and infamous in Sunterra’s “advertising, sales and marketing” expense line, which itself remains well above industry averages.__________________
22
Blackstone Real Estate Advisors (BREA; http://www.blackstone.com/real_estate/index.html), Colony Capital (http://www.colonyrealtypartners.com), and Apollo Real Estate Advisors (http://www.apollorealestate.com), among other private equity leaders, have been extremely active in acquiring real estate assets and related public equity.
23
Sunterra arguably expanded far too rapidly from the time of its 1996 IPO to its 2000 bankruptcy, growing from nine to 89 resorts and from 25,000 to more than 300,000 owners and members during that four year period. In 1998, Sunterra changed its name from Signature Resorts, Inc.
24
Mr. Rayburn was formerly a partner with Arthur Anderson, where he helped to create and develop its corporate recovery services practice.
25
Mr. Benson’s employment agreement provides for $750,000 annual salary plus up to $780,000 in annual cash bonus based on the “attainment of quantitative performance goals agreed upon annually by [Sunterra’s] compensation committee and Mr. Benson.
26
Source: Sunterra 2006 Proxy Statement.


Sunterra’s executive management, which under Maryland corporate law reports to the Company’s Board, appears to have followed the Board’s example by owning less than 0.5%27 of the Company’s shares. This pathetic misalignment with Sunterra’s owners could be rectified with open market purchases, but recently demoted Mr. Benson has failed to utilize any material portion of his $1.3 million in total 2005 compensation to do so. However, I suppose Mr. Benson feels no need to spend his own money to buy Sunterra shares when the Board is willing to grant him the upside on 512,812 shares, or 2.6% of the Company, at no cost to Mr. Benson whatsoever. 28 Chapman Capital wonders if it ever crossed the Board’s collectively simple minds that by having a relatively small amount of outright stock ownership but an enormous allocation of free stock options, Mr. Benson might be induced into the reckless mentality of a gambler playing with the “house’s money” as he gallivanted back and forth to Sunterra’s money losing roulette wheel in Europe. We also wonder if the Board has considered whether the fact that Mr. Benson calls London “home” might make him less inclined to sell Sunterra Europe, and thus kill any rationale for his further involvement as the overpaid CEO of a consequently smaller Sunterra Corporation as a whole.

The Compensation Committee of Sunterra, comprised of you and co-directors Nelson and Willes, surely understands its fiduciary responsibility to a) tie pay to performance, and b) ensure that management is rewarded primarily when the shareholders receive the rewards of capital gains and not irrespective of the absence thereof. Yet, the only thing worse than a Compensation Committee paying now-terminated29 Sunterra Europe Managing Director30 David Harris $647,29231 in FY2005 for his abject failure across the pond was his being paid over $350,00032 to leave. I refuse to believe that Mr. Steven E. West (Fmr. EVP and CFO; 57,355-share/$484,650 ownership vs. $1,184,500 total 2005 compensation), James A. Weissenborn (Interim President and CEO, see Page 6 for compensation figures), Frederick C. Bauman (Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary; 13,075-share/$110,484 ownership vs. $520,993 total 2005 compensation), or Andrew Gennuso (Senior Vice President; 14,009-share/$118,376 ownership vs. $853,125 total 2005 compensation) are in the least bit inept or indolent in performing their duties to the Company’s owners given the disconcerting small ratio of their ownership stake in the Company to their annual compensation.33 I am sure they all have excellent explanations besides the fact that they receive free handouts of restricted stock and free stock option authorized by the Compensation Committee. While Sunterra’s owners may want to inform resigning CFO Steve West not to let the front door slap him on his posterior on the way out, attracting and retaining quality executive talent does not appear to be your strong point. Sunterra director Olof Nelson’s former role as a “Senior Advisor” to Richard C. Breeden & Co., “which provides Financial Advisory, Corporate Governance and Regulatory Consulting Services,” leaves him with no excuse for allowing corporate governance to run awry since Mr. Nelson’s board appointment over two years ago. Working closely with Mr. Breeden, himself formerly the head of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, should have prepared Mr. Nelson adequately to deal with potential conflicts of interest such as one presented by a London-domiciled CEO of a Las Vegas, NV company intransigently fighting that company’s owners’ quest to sell its London-based European division.
__________________
27
Source: Sunterra 2006 Proxy Statement (as of December 31, 2005), which disclosed a total of 93,260 shares owned by Sunterra executive officers
28
In 2003, Sunterra granted Mr. Benson options to purchase 512,812 shares of our common stock under its 2002 Stock Option Plan, as contemplated by his employment agreement, at an exercise price of $15.25 per share. These options were immediately exercisable with respect to 192,305 shares on the date of grant and the remaining options vest pro rata over the 30 months beginning June 30, 2003 so that all of them are presently vested.
29
Source: Sunterra Form 8-K dated April 27, 2006; on May 2, 2006, Sunterra Europe and Mr. Harris entered into a “compromise agreement” dated as of April 27, 2006 pursuant to which Mr. Harris’ employment agreement dated February 23, 2004 between Sunterra Europe and David R. Harris was terminated effective April 30, 2006.
30
Mr. Harris served as Managing Director of Sunterra Europe Group Holdings plc from February 2004 until April 30, 2006.
31
Source: Sunterra 2006 Proxy Statement; Mr. Harris received FY2005 annual compensation consisting of the following: salary of $383,914, bonus of $37,004, restricted stock award of $199,500 and all other compensation of $26,874.
32
Mr. Harris’ “compromise agreement” stipulated that Sunterra Europe will pay Mr. Harris a lump sum of £180,000, less deductions for income tax and national insurance contributions, and the further sum of £30,000, less deductions for income tax and national insurance contributions, on the earlier of the first anniversary of the compromise agreement and a change of control of either Sunterra Europe or Sunterra Europe Limited.
33
Sunterra shares owned by executives valued at $8.45/share.


As Chairman of the Board of Directors of Sunterra, you cannot escape blame for weak oversight of a partially-expelled executive management team that dwelled far too long in the abyss of confident incompetence. It may have seemed like an expeditious exercise in denunciation to “direct that” Mr. Benson take paid administrative leave34 (God forbid he be forced to survive on his mere $1.3 million in 2005 compensation). On January 17, 2006, apparently to deflect yet again the Company’s top shareholder’s repeated requests for Board representation, you defended the existing Board’s competence, stating, “Sunterra's incumbent Board members have extensive business and industry experience, including detailed knowledge of the Company and the vacation ownership industry. They share a strong commitment to optimizing Sunterra's performance strategically, operationally and financially, and thereby building value for all our shareholders. We believe that the addition of a board member with extensive and complementary marketing and hospitality industry experience will benefit both the Company and its shareholders.” However, for many months, Sunterra’s Board has acted out a series of sham indulgences of Sunterra’s former top owner group, which had communicated publicly to the Board its reasonable critique of Mr. Benson’s Oscar award winning Pollyanna performance every time the curtain rose on Sunterra Europe. Sunterra’s Board, along with its connected-at-the-hip management team, may have become insensitive to the sheer agony being felt by these owners due to the Board’s near failure to qualify as owners themselves.

Chapman Capital believes that your professional background at Conseco and elsewhere renders you poorly qualified to chair Sunterra’s Board of Directors. Your employment as Conseco’s EVP for Strategic Business Development and member of CEO Gary “Dough Boy”35 Wendt’s senior staff terminated abruptly in March 2002 after only one year’s service, during which brief period Conseco’s stock plummeted from approximately $14/share to $4/share en route to becoming worthless via Conseco’s bankruptcy filed several months later. With Conseco having spiraled toward Chapter 11 during your executive tenure, combined with your lax oversight of Mr. Benson and his European fiasco, I am hard pressed to understand how you could expect Sunterra’s owners to sleep well at night with you at the helm of their company. What may be more alarming is the apparent decay in your professional standards over the last fifteen years, deduced from your commentary that we have obtained from April 2001.36 It is unfortunate that you and the Board seem to lack the energy and focus that the young, 38-year-old David Gubbay possessed, as seen when you described why you still lived in an apartment: “I'm single and spend a lot of time at work."37 More relevant to Sunterra’s current plight, you were quoted as stating, “There were high-flying companies in the 80s, but in the 90s, people want stability, predictability, a quality company with established relationships that you know is going to be there when you have a claim.” At the risk of insulting you by stating the obvious, in the 2000s, people want stability, predictability and a quality company” as well, and in this endeavor, as Chairman of Sunterra’s Board of Directors, you have failed miserably to deliver.
__________________
34
Mr. Benson was directed to “take paid administrative leave, to which he agreed, pending the results of the previously disclosed investigation by the Audit and Compliance Committee of the Board into various allegations …” on June 22, 2006.
35
Credit for Mr. Wendt’s “Dough Boy” nickname belongs to Mr. Daniel S. Loeb, who reportedly profited handsomely from Conseco’s revaluation during bankruptcy proceedings.
36
Source: Mississippi Business Journal, dated April 29, 1991.
37
In the same article, Mr. Gubbay established his status as a “player” when he told the reporter that “calls from interested females would be welcome.”

Though Mr. James Weissenborn was just appointed Interim CEO and President, as a director of the Company for over two years38 he is culpable in part for the Board’s willingness to let Mr. Benson’s baby bleed Sunterra into a single digit stock price. Our preliminary investigation of Mr. Weissenborn’s professional background leaves us dubious as to his ability to execute any turnaround plan, no matter how facile the task. In our view, decamping CFO Steven West also had little confidence in Mr. Weissenborn’s ability to maximize shareholder value, as Mr. West recently forgave the unvested portion of his 190,000 stock options (struck at $15.25/share) and forfeited 30,000 restricted, unvested shares (worth nearly $300,000 at the time of his June 21, 2006 resignation notification). Formerly the treasurer and vice president of business development for Pulte Homes, Inc. (NYSE: PHM), president of Pulte Financial Companies Inc. and a CPA with Arthur Andersen, Mr. Weissenborn should have possessed sufficient experience in tax matters to handle the Spanish Inquisition in a more deft fashion. Moreover, Chapman Capital is troubled by Mr. Weissenborn’s resume, including his abrupt departure as CFO of from Ilitch Ventures, Inc.39 in September 1999 only six months after assuming that position. After an apparent hiatus from employment, some five months later it was announced that Mr. Weissenborn was forming Mackinac Partners as an incubator for Michigan-based startups with Mr. Paul Tobias, who had just reached a settlement with Comerica over the latter’s “ouster”40 as CEO of Munder Capital. To compensate (in part)41 a man with this “pedigree” and lack of timeshare management experience, you and the rest of the Board determined it fair to spend Sunterra’s owners’ money to the tune of $900,000 annually,42 plus up to 100,000 shares of restricted stock (valued today at over $800,000), plus “reasonable out-of-pocket expenses,”43 more than the salary of Bluegreen Corporation’s CEO ($500,000 salary on a $350 million market capitalization). This latest deal (disclosed just yesterday) follows a June 5, 2006 agreement by Sunterra to pay Mackinac $85,000/month (subject to upward/downward adjustments based on the actual hours of work performed), plus out-of-pocket reimbursement to provide advisory and management services to Sunterra Europe (arguably a job that Mr. Benson was being paid handsomely to oversee, at a minimum). Mackinac Partners also was retained to perform consulting services to the Company during its bankruptcy and post-emergence period, taking in nearly $2 million for related efforts. Essentially, Mr. Weissenborn and his partners at Mackinac have been, and will continue to be paid, a king’s ransom while Sunterra’s owners remained confined in a single digit dungeon.

Unless you or Audit Committee members Messrs. Dickerson (Chairman), Nelson or Willes have illicit or negligent acts you desire to keep ensconced from replacement auditors, Sunterra must replace Grant Thornton LLP as its financial auditors immediately. As recently as February 22, 2006, when you assembled Sunterra’s owners for the annual meeting of stockholders in Orlando, Florida, you recommended “the ratification of the appointment of Grant Thornton LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.” Yet, only one month later on March 21, 2006, Sunterra, “upon recommendation and authorization from the Audit and Compliance Committee of Sunterra’s Board of Directors, dismissed44 Grant Thornton LLP45 (“Grant Thornton”) as the Registrant’s independent registered public accounting firm.”46 Sunterra’s Board’s disrespect of the Company’s owners was evident even in this crucial filing, as the Company waited a full week until March 27, 2006, to inform its owners of this material event. At that time over three months ago, Sunterra stated that it “ha[d] begun the process of evaluating several firms to replace Grant Thornton,” adding that “[o]nce this evaluation process yields a decision, another Form 8-K will be issued.” Yet, as you and your accomplices on the Board appear to be taking your time resolving this issue, Sunterra’s owners have lost nearly half the market value of their investment.47 Sunterra’s owners should not and shall not tolerate the Board’s failure to retain rumored Grant Thornton replacement Deloitte & Touche, a task that should be facilitated by newly promoted Sunterra CFO Robert Krawczyk, who was employed there from 1995 to August 2004 and most recently as a Senior Manager specializing in the timeshare industry. With members such as the former CFO of Caremark Rx, Inc. and Aetna U.S. Healthcare (Mr. Dickerson), former treasurer of Pulte Homes, Inc., CFO of the holding company for Little Caesars, and CPA with Arthur Andersen (Mr. Weissenborn), and former CFO of ISCO International Inc. (audited by Grant Thornton; AMEX: ISO; Mr. Willes), Sunterra’s Board should have no problem utilizing its accounting network to replace Grant Thornton. The final resolution of the “Spanish Inquisition” has been estimated at four-six weeks from now, an excessive amount of time in our view given that by your own admission48 Sunterra was made aware of the former Spanish employee’s withholding tax allegations on December 9, 2005, nearly seven months ago.
__________________
38
Mr. Weissenborn was named to the Sunterra Board of Directors in April 2004, when he and Messrs. Dickerson and Nelson replaced retiring directors Messrs. Joseph Jacobs, Bradford T. Whitmore, and Frederick Simon.
39
Ilitch Ventures, Inc. is the holding company for Michael and Marian Ilitch that oversees Little Caesars Enterprises Inc. and their other companies.
40
Source: Detroit Free Press. See further http://www.mackinacpartners.com
41
Sunterra engaged Mackinac Partners as of June 5, 2006.
42
Source: Sunterra Form 8-K filed June 27, 2006; Payment is made in $75,000/month installments, subject to a $200,000 minimum and $900,000 “make-whole lump sum cash amount” of $900,000 based on the initial six-month initial engagement period.
43
Ibid., out-of-pocket expenses include commuting, temporary housing and legal fees.
44
According to sources, Sunterra has claimed that Grant Thornton’s March 21, 2006, dismissal originally was unrelated to the Spanish Inquisition, but instead derived from the Company’s determination that an auditor more familiar with timeshare accounting would be preferable to Grant Thornton’s Los Angeles office.
45
Chapman Capital supports the March 21, 2006, dismissal of Grant Thornton given the Company’s testimony (via Form 8-K/A filed April 10, 2006) that Grant Thornton was a) “informed … of the receipt of such email and the nature of the allegations” [emphasis added]), and b) advised “orally and in writing” that Sunterra’s management “had submitted the allegations made by the former employee to its internal auditors and in-house legal counsel for investigation and follow-up” on or about December 12, 2005, but Grant Thornton has failed to take responsibility for its not having “previously been provided with this email [emphasis added], or the specific allegations being made by the previous employee during either [its] audit of Sunterra Corporation’s financial statements for the year ended September 30, 2005 or when [it] performed interim review procedures on the Company’s financial statements for the quarter ended December 21,2005.” Obviously, it was incumbent upon Grant Thornton at a minimum to request a copy of “the email,” a claim that it apparently has not made at any time.
46
Source: Sunterra Form 8-K dated March 28, 2006.
47
Sunterra’s common shares closed at $14.34 on March 27, 2006 vs. their market value of approximately $8.00 at of the date of this letter.
48
Source: Sunterra Form 8-K/A dated April 10, 2006.


The velvet-gloved disrespect shown to major Sunterra owners and prominent real estate tycoons possessing such surnames Zell and Pritzker shall not be tolerated by Chapman Capital. Guided by tenacious John D. Ziegelman’s CD Capital Management, LLC, this investment group has beseeched you for six months to make the obvious strategic move of amputating hemorrhaging Sunterra Europe and install on the Board a highly qualified owner representative to ensure the surgery is successful. Instead of displaying the proper reverence for these esteemed Sunterra owners, you engaged in Corporate America’s old-school game of “Dodge and Defer.” However, our Schedule 13D filing is not being made today by a coalition of the willing tainted by a timorous member who may lose his nerve, cowardly fleeing this new world of shareholder activism. To the contrary, Chapman Capital will not allow you to pretermit its demands for a sale of the Company. Our firm intends to initiate a full scale investigation of you and the balance of the Board, utilizing an in-house private investigator (and former Marine has returned from battle in the Balkans) who will be directed to shadow your past, present and prospective activities as they potentially affect our ownership interest in the Company. We may seek to obtain intimate knowledge of all aspects of your life that may indicate an adverse effect or risk to our investment. In essence, you should live and breathe under the cloud that your past failures to regulate Mr. Benson have subjugated the Board and executive management into a state of perpetual audit.

Any takeover defense by Sunterra’s management counterclaiming that Chapman Capital is “attacking” or otherwise adverse to the best interests of the Company (as compared to its management’s careers) is patently preposterous. On behalf of our own partners and shareholders, Chapman Capital has expended nearly $12 million to purchase over 8% of the Company, ample incentive to protect rather than punish the investment. Yet, despite a virtually unblemished activist track record and near doubling (on average) of our targets’ stock prices following fifteen previous campaigns of “Owner Liberation,” I have been confronted repeatedly with three identical management/director defenses. Accordingly, in order to head off certain tutelary tactics on your part, I hereby articulate Chapman Capital’s rebuttals to the baseless accusations I anticipate:

Baseless Accusation #1: Chapman Capital has made personal attacks against the Company and its management;

Cogent Rebuttal #1: The fustigation contained herein targets exclusively Sunterra management and directors’ professional actions or inactions (i.e., failure to sell the European division). We are entirely complimentary of the Company’s products, services and non executive employees, while we neither know nor care little about the personal lives, habits or attributes of Sunterra’s management or Board to the extent such deportment does not affect our investment in the Company. Once again, criticism of a person’s behavior in his capacity as a professional fiduciary does not constitute a personal attack.


Baseless Accusation #2: Chapman Capital is acting in concert with other Sunterra owners;

Cogent Rebuttal #2: No member of Chapman Capital has engaged in any prohibited discussion or alternate form of communication regarding Sunterra with any other owner of Sunterra. Moreover, should Sunterra General Counsel Frederick Bauman take a few minutes to review Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 13(d)(3) and related Rule 13d-3, he will realize that legal constitution of a “group” requires the exceptionally high hurdle that “two or more persons act as a partnership, limited partnership, syndicate, or other group for the purpose of acquiring, holding or disposing of securities of an issuer,” with the list of beneficial owners belonging to such group only including “any person who, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise has or shares voting or investment power” in the Issuer. Lastly, as I am sure Sunterra’s lawyers will inform you, since 1992,49 two shareholders of any size, amounting to any combined percentage of Sunterra, can debate or otherwise discuss amongst themselves the Company’s merits and pitfalls, intentions or expectations regarding matters of his/her own portfolio management, research, trading, or corporate governance involving the Company. Thus, at the risk of being officious, please take this word of advice: when the angry masses inevitably come huffing and puffing on the door of 3865 West Cheyenne Avenue, crying wolf pack will only enrich the Company’s attorneys and delay the unavoidable destiny a public company whose majority ownership wants it sold to the highest bidder.

Baseless Accusation #3: Chapman Capital seeks short term, “quick-buck” profits at the expense of long term shareholders;

Cogent Rebuttal #3: Sunterra’s long term shareholders seem to have paid dearly for believing in your long term plans for the Company. One by one, whether it be 6% shareholder Heartland Advisors or one of a handful of others that punted their ownership stake in just the past week (to Chapman Capital and others), your owners seem to have imbibed Nick’s Long-Term Value Cool Aid and now have “fool poisoning.” Clearly, after expending scarce corporate resources on the Boston Consulting Group review and an extended period of failed growth strategies for Europe, Sunterra’s distressed stock price speaks for itself. Moreover, we look forward to transitioning our ownership into what the U.S. government defines as “long-term” status on Day 366 of our holding period. Nothing would please our firm more than selling our entire position above $14/share, as legally “long-term shareholders,” at the conclusion of a successful auction in 2007.

If our ownership stake in Sunterra leaves you tossing and turning through sleepless nights, we recommend that you pick up a copy of insomnia-killer The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Adolph Berle and Gardiner Means. Printed 21 years before you were born, this corporate governance suspense thriller spells out Berle and Means’ view of how modern capitalism is characterized by pervasive oligopoly and the separation of management from ownership. For a decade now, I have lamented publicly via Schedule 13D filings how fragmented equity ownership converts capital-risking “Owners” into un-concentrated, faceless, DTC-coded “shareholders.” In this conflicted world of “Agency Capitalism,” a board and its hired hands (together, the “Agents”) conveniently lose sight of the most important fact of their corporate lives: the Agents work for the Owners, and should such Agents differ in opinion from the majority of Owners regarding strategic and operational direction, it is incumbent upon those Agents to convert dissident Owners to management’s disparate views rather than simply state, “We possess more complete information and/or better judgment than the Owners who hired us.” Importantly, for the Agents’ intransigent approach to have any legitimacy, this “complete information” must be material in its relevance to a rational investor in his making a decision to buy or sell the company’s shares. If such “information” is in fact “material” by the SEC’s definition thereof, then under Regulation FD the Company has a responsibility to make “fair disclosure” of any such information promptly via an 8-K filing (possibly accompanied by a press release), thus feeding the process of informing Owners of any material developments that the Agents feel is creating deficient Owner comprehension. In essence, Agents must make their alternate case public and subsequently convince the Owners that their own views are either out-of-date or simply irrational. We are watching this play out now in the battle for Board control of H.J. Heinz Company, as both incumbent and agitator have campaigned their cost cutting platforms to the entire Ownership base. Yet, if Agents truly were beholden to public company Owners rather than the executives to whom they often owe their directorship in the first place, there would be no need for proxy contests whatsoever as directors exercising due care would mediate the conflict between management’s plans and those of the Owner majority. While such mediation requires a director remaining able and willing to communicate with Owners, any director unable or unwilling to commit such time to fulfill his fiduciary duties simply should resign his directorship.__________________
49
In 1992, the SEC, under pressure from CalPERS et. al., revised its proxy rules to allow shareholders to communicate with each other without going through elaborate and expensive filing procedures. See Exchange Act Release No. 31326 (Regulation of Communications Among Shareholders; Oct.16, 1992), 57 Fed. Reg. 48276.

I must reiterate that Chapman Capital has absolutely no interest in obtaining Board seats at Sunterra Corporation. As noted in our recent Schedule 13D filing in another shareholder-unfriendly public company,50 we have no interest in being shackled by the membership rules of a Club Sunterra “insider”. Chapman Capital is a “Berle and Gardiner Shareholder Activist,” yearning for the ephemerally salubrious separation of management from ownership. To be honest, I begin to retch at the image of my flying into Las Vegas to attend a board meeting as a minority director outweighed by the group-think driven crew listed in the addressee section above. I have nightmares involving my sitting across from Mr. Benson as he offers me tea and biscuits just before expounding his evidence-free, “long-term” business judgment regarding the imminent “European turnaround.” I ponder why any Owner, such as CD Capital, should become fearfully compelled to have its representative serve on the Company’s board of directors - you and the rest of the Sunterra gang, according to “B&G”, are being paid cash of $41,250 - $71,000 per year,51 plus $40,000 per year of “stock-based compensation”52, to maximize (and certainly not destroy) the value of the Owners’ investments. Essentially, the Owners gave Mr. Benson a lease on Sunterra, but that lease ran out Friday, June 23, 2006, when you and the rest of the Board belatedly sent Mr. Benson home to ponder his failure as CEO. On that day, when your and Mr. Benson’s ability to point to the “long term shareholders” for support lapsed as their ownership interests were puked into a market valuing Sunterra’s shares at their immediate post bankruptcy level,53 the “two minute warning” on your career as a public company fiduciary began ticking away. I pray you do not rest peacefully at night dreaming of a world free of proxy fights. Should another shareholder determine to follow our lead, “shadow 13D” our filing, and propose an alternative slate of directors, consider your eviction notice having been served.

In conclusion, Chapman Capital, on behalf of what it believes is a majority of Sunterra’s owners, demands that the Company’s Agents consummate an auction of Sunterra Corporation. As a microcap public company forced to wade through public beach waters infested with the dorsal fins of Messrs. Sarbanes, Oxley, and Chapman, Sunterra should be able to command a massive premium (to public market) valuation as part of either a vertically or horizontally combined strategic buyer, a financial buyer capable of obtaining management accountability and performance unattainable when management knows public equity is either faceless (small, non-demanding “shareholders”) or feckless (large, “flight over fight” owners). While the sale of Sunterra at our estimated valuation may not be the lottery ticket to which Mr. Benson has become accustomed54 while at the Company, I am sure you realize that Mr. Benson has only himself to blame any prospective expiration of such options in “out of the money” form.


Sincerely,

/s/ Robert L. Chapman, Jr.

Robert L. Chapman, Jr.

__________________
50
On June 8, 2006, Chapman Capital filed a Schedule 13D on Carreker Corporation, a public company mismanaged with distinction by CEO Denny Carreker.
51
Source: Sunterra 2006 Proxy Statement, based on FY2005 “Compensation of Directors”.
52
Ibid.; a director who is also an employee of Sunterra does not receive additional compensation for service as a director.
53
In May 2003, Sunterra common shares traded in the range of approximately $7 to 9.
54
Due to the out-of-the-money, $15.25/share strike price on his half a million stock options, any acquisition of Sunterra below such strike price would render those particular options worthless.