Murdoch meeting raises disclosure issues

[Omaha Steve]

Full story: http://money.excite.com/ht/nw/bus/20060708/hle_bus-n06422540.html

Murdoch meeting raises disclosure issues

Saturday July 8, 5:19 PM EDT

By Kenneth Li

NEW YORK (Reuters) - News Corp. (NWS) shareholders learned how much revenue a closely watched Internet division would generate -- if they were lucky enough to be invited to a meeting in Australia last week with Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch.

Owners of the rest of the company's 3.2 billion outstanding shares were left in the dark until a day later, when UBS analyst Aryeh Bourkoff published a research note about the proceedings that was furnished to U.S.-based media.

The disclosure of sales targets for the unit that oversees the popular online teen hangout MySpace.com -- responsible for much of Wall Street's enthusiasm for the long term prospects of News Corp.'s stock -- has spurred experts on U.S. securities law to question whether Murdoch had given investors in Australia an advantage over those in the U.S.

While four experts contacted by Reuters stopped short of saying Murdoch had broken U.S. selective disclosure laws, they said the incident merited further probing, particularly given that News Corp. shifted its domicile from Australia to the U.S. in 2004.

"I see a fair amount of smoke -- I wonder how much fire is there," said James Cox, a securities law professor at Duke University. "Certainly, if I were on the enforcement staff of the SEC, I would want to collect more information from News Corp. to (learn) exactly what transpired."

[w4rma]

1. It looks cut and dry to me. Give Murdoch his slap on the wrist. (nt)

[itzamirakul]

2. Indeed! A slap on the wrist and add on an opportunity for him to

create a new monoply on the internet universe.

[Jaundice James]

3. Interesting. Bumped and recommended. Nice find. n/t

[Tellurian]

4. Nice interpretation of what "is" is...

"The law's broad definition of "material" makes it hard to enforce, said securities experts. Late last year, a Reg FD case the SEC filed against software company Siebel Systems Inc. was dismissed by a district court on grounds the information in question was not that different to already public information."

And case law to boot!

nice-