David Einhorn, president of Greenlight Capital, speaks during the Sohn Investment Conference in New York, May 16, 2012.

NEW YORK | Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:14pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - David Einhorn reiterated his arguments Friday that a judge should block a shareholder vote on Apple Inc's proposal to eliminate its ability to issue preferred shares without investor approval, days before a court hearing.

In court filings in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Einhorn's Greenlight Capital attempted to rebut Apple's arguments that the company's proposal was "pro-shareholder."

"Apple should not be allowed to substitute its judgment for its shareholders' judgment, and should be enjoined" from letting the vote proceed, Greenlight said in a motion.

A hearing on Einhorn's motion for an injunction against the February 27 vote on the proxy proposal is set for Tuesday. A spokesman for Apple declined comment.

Greenlight sued Apple last week as part of Einhorn's larger effort to have the iPhone maker share more of its $137 billion in cash with investors.

As part of that goal, Einhorn has pushed for Apple to issue to its shareholders perpetual preferred stock with a 4 percent dividend.

Among the Apple proxy proposals up for a vote February 27 is Proposal No. 2, which would remove the company's current system of issuing preferred stock at its discretion without a shareholder vote.

Greenlight's lawsuit contends Apple violated U.S. Securities and Exchange rules by "bundling" three separate amendments to its charter into Proposal No. 2. While Greenlight supports two of the amendments, it does not back the one related to preferred stock.

Apple in a Wednesday filing argued the proposal was not bundled and that it had not forced shareholders into an unfair choice. It also noted Proposal No. 2 was supported by proxy advisory services Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass, Lewis & Co.

But Einhorn argued on Friday that ISS and Glass Lewis's support is premised on the belief that eliminating so-called "blank check" preferred stock powers enables a company to defend itself against a takeover.

"In my view, Apple is not a realistic take-over candidate because of, among other things, its enormous market capitalization," Einhorn wrote.

At Tuesday's hearing, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan will also hear a separate challenge by an Apple investor from Pennsylvania to block not just the Proposal No. 2 vote, but also an advisory "say-on-pay" vote on executives compensation.

The investor, Brian Gralnick, contends Apple has not disclose enough details about how it made its decisions in awarding restricted stock units to certain executives.

Apple responded that its disclosures were adequate and appropriate.

The case is Greenlight Capital LP, et al., v. Apple Inc., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 13-900.

(Reporting By Nate Raymond; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz)

View the original article here

WASHINGTON | Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:29pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers attacked Chuck Hagel on Thursday at a contentious hearing over his nomination to become the next U.S. defense secretary, questioning his judgment on war strategy and putting him broadly on the defensive.

In one of the most heated exchanges, Senator John McCain aggressively questioned Hagel, interrupting him and talking over him at times. He voiced frustration at the former Republican senator's failure to say plainly whether he was right or wrong to oppose the 2007 "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether to vote for your confirmation or not," McCain said.

Hagel, who like McCain is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, declined to offer a simple yes or no answer, responding, "I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out."

As President Barack Obama's choice to lead the Pentagon in his second term, Hagel could clinch Senate approval thanks to help from majority Democrats. But he appeared to pick up little new Republican support as his hours-long hearing wore on.

Although Republicans could create procedural hurdles to block him, there were no overt promises at the hearing to do so.

"Unless the Republicans filibuster him, the nomination is going to go through," said Bill Galston, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist, said, "It's been a tough day for Chuck Hagel overall."

"I think the Republicans are trying to decide whether they really want to push the pedal to the floor with Hagel," he said.

The Senate Armed Services Committee's Democratic chairman, Carl Levin, praised Hagel's performance after the nearly eight-hour hearing ended. "I thought he did very well. I thought he was responsive. He kept his cool. His experience was both modestly and eloquently described," the Michigan senator said.

The earliest the committee will vote on Hagel's nomination is next Thursday, Levin added.

Hagel's fellow Republicans dredged up a series of his past controversial statements on Iran, Israel and U.S. nuclear strategy, trying to paint him as outside mainstream security thinking. Even in polarized Washington, the grilling was highly unusual for a Cabinet nominee.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina laid into Hagel for once accusing a "Jewish lobby" of intimidating people in Washington, comments Hagel repeatedly said he regretted. Asked whether he could name one lawmaker who had been intimidated, Hagel said he could not. It was one of the many times he appeared uncomfortable.

"I can't think of a more provocative thing to say about the relationship between the United States and Israel and the Senate or the Congress than what you said," Graham said.

SEEKING TO SET RECORD STRAIGHT

If he is ultimately confirmed, Hagel will take over the Pentagon at a time of sharp reductions in defense spending, and with the United States still facing major challenges, including China, Iran and North Korea.

Hagel, speaking publicly for the first time since the attacks against his nomination began, seemed cautious and halting at times. He sought to set the record straight, assuring the panel that he backed U.S. policies of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and supporting a strong Israel.

"No one individual vote, no one individual quote, no one individual statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record," Hagel said in opening remarks to the packed hearing room.

"My overall world view has never changed: that America has and must maintain the strongest military in the world."

In an unusual reversal of partisanship, Democrats, more than Republicans, gave Hagel sympathetic support and time to air his views, which adhered broadly to Pentagon policy.

"I feel like I want to apologize for some of the tone and demeanor from today," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.

Galston said Thursday's hearing appeared to sap some of the momentum Hagel had going into the session after weeks of pushback by his allies against criticism.

He added, "It's going to be harder to present Hagel's confirmation now as a victory for bipartisanship - overcoming doubts, or coming together around sensible mainstream policies."

Despite the harsh tone from many Republicans, some senators from the party approached Hagel more collegially.

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia called Hagel by his first name and exchanged jokes with him during his testimony. He served alongside Hagel in the Senate.

But Hagel years ago angered many Republicans by breaking with his party over the handling of the Iraq war.

It was one of several contentious chapters of modern U.S. history that surfaced during the session, from the Vietnam War, where Hagel served as an infantryman and was wounded, to former President Ronald Reagan's call for nuclear disarmament.

Hagel, who would be the first Vietnam veteran to serve as Pentagon chief, also was questioned on his view of the Pentagon budget. He is known as an advocate for tighter spending controls.

'WRONG' MAN FOR THE JOB

Even before Hagel started speaking, James Inhofe, the panel's senior Republican, called him "the wrong person to lead the Pentagon at this perilous and consequential time."

"Senator Hagel's record is deeply troubling and out of the mainstream. Too often it seems he is willing to subscribe to a worldwide view that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends," said Inhofe of Oklahoma.

McCain's harsh attitude toward Hagel - whom he also singled out for opposing Obama's increase of forces in Afghanistan - was a far cry from their past, warm ties. McCain campaigned for Hagel in his Nebraska U.S. Senate race in 1996, and Hagel was national co-chairman of the Arizona Republican's unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid.

On Thursday, McCain said concerns about Hagel's qualifications ran deep.

"Our concerns pertain to the quality of your professional judgment and your world view on critical areas of national security, including security in the Middle East," he said.

In the entire Senate, which would vote on Hagel if he is cleared by the committee, only one of the 45 Republicans - Mississippi's Thad Cochran - has said he backs Hagel.

Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Dan Coats of Indiana on Thursday joined the list of Republicans who said they would vote against Hagel.

(Additional reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Warren Strobel, Jackie Frank and Peter Cooney)

View the original article here

George Zimmerman appears for a bond hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center in Sanford, Florida, June 29, 2012.

MIAMI | Thu Aug 9, 2012 5:14pm EDT

MIAMI (Reuters) - Lawyers for a Florida man charged in the shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin said on Thursday they will seek a hearing under a controversial self-defense law that could result in the dismissal of criminal charges against him.

George Zimmerman's lawyers said they saw "clear support for a strong claim of self-defense" after prosecutors released much of their evidence in the case.

Zimmerman, 28, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in the February 26 shooting death of Martin in the central Florida of Sanford. He claims he shot the unarmed 17-year-old in self defense while acting as a neighborhood watch volunteer.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law allows people to use deadly force when they fear great bodily harm or death. Supporters of the law, which was enacted in 2005, argue it is intended to serve as a deterrent to violent crime, but critics charge it encourages vigilante justice.

In a hearing under "Stand Your Ground," a judge, not a jury, determines whether evidence meets criteria laid out in the law, said David Weinstein, a former Florida state and federal prosecutor now in private practice in Miami.

If the judge rules in Zimmerman's favor, he would be granted immunity from prosecution in Martin's death.

"If Zimmerman wins the hearing, it's case over," said Weinstein.

On the other hand, if the case goes forward to a full-blown trial, the hearing would offer the prosecution a good look at the defense strategy, he added.

"This is your shot. You lay it all out," said Weinstein.

Lawyers for Zimmerman said it would take several months to prepare for the hearing, which they expect to focus on whether Zimmerman "reasonably believed that his use of his weapon was necessary to prevent bodily harm to himself."

CONFRONTATION IN STREET

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin during a confrontation in a gated community. Martin was walking back from a store when Zimmerman called a 911 dispatcher and said the teen looked suspicious.

Zimmerman said he shot Martin after Martin attacked him and repeatedly slammed his head to the ground. Citing the self-defense law, police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman for several weeks after the shooting.

Minutes before he was killed, Martin spoke with a girlfriend on his cellphone. That conversation may prove to be crucial testimony in the hearing, said Charles Rose, a professor at the Stetson University College of Law.

"The hearing may very well rotate around what Trayvon Martin did or did not say while he was on the phone right before the altercation," said Rose.

Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin's family, said he expects the case will eventually go to trial.

"A grown man cannot profile and pursue an unarmed child, shoot him in the heart and then claim 'Stand Your Ground,'" he said in statement. "We believe that the killer's motion will be denied."

On Thursday, prosecutors released new evidence in the case, including Zimmerman's college records. But they later recalled some of the documents after realizing they included an indistinct photo of Martin's dead body, which is protected under Florida's privacy laws.

Zimmerman is free on a $1 million bond and living in an undisclosed safe house near Sanford.

(Additional reporting by Barbara Liston in Orlando and David Adams in Miami; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Philip Barbara)

View the original article here