James Balsillie, the co-CEO of Research-in-Motion, can’t seem to catch a break. Having failed in previous efforts to buy NHL teams in Pittsburgh and Nashville and move them to Hamilton, Ontario, he’s now been shut out in his bid to buy the bankrupt Phoenix Coyotes. Arizona bankruptcy Judge Redfield Baum ruled late on Monday that a June 29 deadline set by Balsillie did not allow enough time to settle the complex case. It’s a shame things were so rushed. The decision could yet be a game changer for struggling sports franchises.

Balsillie (pictured above enjoying the game from the ice) and the owner of the Coyotes, trucking magnate Jerry Moyes, offered to put together a $212.5 million deal in May, when the franchise filed for bankruptcy protection, to move the team to Hamilton, about 200 miles northwest of Buffalo, N.Y. But NHL says the franchise is contractually obligated to stay in Phoenix.

Being a judge, Baum took the liberty to say both sides are wrong. He rejected Moyes’ attorneys’ argument that antitrust law allowed the sale and relocation of the Coyotes without NHL approval, and he dismissed concerns of other sports leagues that allowing the Coyotes to relocate would encourage other financially struggling teams to use bankruptcy court to get around league rules.

The Coyotes have never made a profit since moving to Arizona from Winnipeg in 1996 and lost $73 million from 2005 to 2008, according to court documents. If bankruptcy, with its power to renegotiate contracts, is not a good enough reason to find a better market for your product, what is?

Balsillie is keeping his game face on, saying there is still time for a deal to be worked out. He probably doesn’t need the deadlines. While the fortunes of the BlackBerry market may ebb and flow, its unlikely fans in Hamilton will lose their taste for a game that has proven so popular in Florida, North Carolina and Southern California, if not the desert.

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:9.5pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; color:#666666;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> (Updated with Data Domain’s rejection of EMC’s bid)

Data Domain has formally rejected EMC’s $1.8 billion cash takeover bid in favor of a 1.9 $billion cash and stock deal it has signed with NetApp. EMC is expected to come back with a higher offer. It has a much bigger war chest than NetApp, and could stand to win the war for market share even if it loses the bidding battle.

In its rejection of the hostile EMC bid, Data Domain said EMC had not agreed to enter into standstill or confidentiality agreements required by its NetApp deal and that it believed EMC’s offer was less likely to close than NetApp’s. It also pointed to break-up fees with NetApp.

Sources told us on Friday that EMC plans to raise its bid before Data Doman shareholders vote on the matter. No date for such a vote has yet been set.

EMC could offer as much as $35 per share, sources say — $5 above its current offer. EMC’s strategy, according to one of the sources who has knowledge of its thinking, is to win Data Domain or drive the price so high that the acquisition weakens NetApp’s finances, Jim Finkle and Anupreeta Das report.

The view from the sidelines is that the only threat to EMC, which has $7.1 billion in cash, including $4 billion in the United States, is U.S. government intervention on anti-trust grounds.

It may never get that far. The government may be in charge, but cash is king, and some investors are already leaning toward EMC and its bigger cash payout.

Barclays will look a whole lot healthier after securing $13.5 billion from BlackRock for its crown-jewellish BGI asset-management arm. This is the same Barclays that turned down aid from the British government and bought defunct Lehman Brothers’ U.S. investment banking business in September, giving it that heroic posture of a down-but-not-out, maybe somewhat punch-drunk prize fighter — Britain’s own Rocky Balboa. Now, as far as Chief Executive John Varley is concerned, BGI-less Barclays is one of the best-capitalized banks in the world.

Investors are cheering Barclays on. Its share price has soared more than fivefold in the last three months, after crashing to a 24-year low on fears that it might need taxpayer funds.

The deal makes BlackRock the world’s biggest asset manager. Though the wealthy of the world are hurting in the recession along with the paycheck-to-paycheck crowd, it’s hard to see Barclays staying in the back seat of the lucrative asset-management market for long. Under the cash-and-shares deal, Barclays takes a 19.9 percent stake and two seats on the board of the enlarged group, to be called BlackRock Global Investors (giving the new firm the added bonus of not having to change BGI’s stationery).

After enjoying a bit of confusion from savior Fiat about the imperative of a June 15 deadline, and a quick, 24-hour trip to the Supreme Court, Chrysler creditors now know in no uncertain terms just how much political will there is behind getting the automaker’s government-orchestrated deal done.

The top U.S. court can certainly be counted on to ponderously deliberate matters of vital importance to the nation. But when the consequences of delay are dire (thousands of auto workers’ jobs, a U.S. presidency, etc.), a decision to not make a decision can come with lightning speed.

In a brief two-page order, the justices said opponents of the Fiat-Chrysler deal had not met the burden of showing the Supreme Court needed to intervene. The court’s action was not a decision on the merits of the challenge, they said. The Chrysler dispute marked the first time the Supreme Court had been confronted by legal issues involving the federal government’s power to deal with the economic crisis.

More importantly, it showed that the mechanics working on the reconstruction of the auto industry may have one less headache to worry about as they hammer out problems at General Motors, which is using a similar quick-sale strategy in its bankruptcy in New York.

Barclays‘ seemingly never-ending effort to get top dollar for its Barclays Global Investors unit appears to be enticing some Middle East money behind the current best bid from U.S. fund manager BlackRock, which is believed to be in the neighborhood of $12 billion.

Barclays said it had received proposals for BGI and iShares from a number of parties, including BlackRock, and was continuing talks. BlackRock confirmed the talks, but both sides said issues remained that could derail a deal. San Francisco-based BGI is the world’s biggest fund manager, with $1.5 trillion in assets under management and would more than double the size of BlackRock.

With Bank of New York Mellon also in the hunt, sources say Barclays may keep a hand in the game after a sale, possibly taking a stake of up to 20 percent in the enlarged asset manager. Media reports say BlackRock may get funding from Middle East investors, possibly including some Barclays shareholders. The Qatar Investment Authority and Adia, the government investment arm of Abu Dhabi, are in talks alongside Kuwait’s KIO to inject $3 billion into BlackRock for a 12 percent stake, the UK’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper said.

In April Barclays agreed to sell iShares, which is part of BGI, to buyout house CVC for $4.4 billion, but a “go shop” clause allows it to seek higher offers until June 18. So even if a deal is struck this week, the BGI sale may continue to dominate headlines for another week and a half.

While Wall Street banks pick themselves up from the mat and start putting together the billions they owe Washington for having saved the country’s financial system from utter ruin, the government’s long knives appear to still be plenty sharp for the two biggest casualties, Citi and Bank of America. Why not? These are also two of the least likely to quickly emerge from the bailout.

The FDIC is reportedly trying to unseat Citi’s CEO Vikram Pandit, Bank of America’s Ken Lewis is likely headed back to Capitol Hill next week for another grilling, and adding a little spice to the mix is news that the SEC has charged former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo with fraud.

Countrywide was bought by Bank of America for $2.5 billion last July, after it appears Mozilo started dumping shares in his own company, of which he is alleged to have written, “We are flying blind on how these loans will perform in a stressed environment of higher unemployment, reduced values and slowing home sales.”

Scrutiny of the banks comes from we the taxpayer and shareholder of last resort, and may go some way to showing how little faith we have in the management of these banks boards, but not necessarily Uncle Sam’s ability to clean up the mess. Bank of America moved to replace its chief risk officer yesterday, and Citi could find some sympathy in Congress for its claims that FDIC chair Sheila Bair is overstepping her bounds in tightening the screws on Citi.

(From Acquisitions Monthly)

Rio Tinto’s agreement to scrap its refinancing deal with Chinese shareholder Chinalco, join its iron interests in Australia with arch rival BHP Billiton and raise $15 billion from investors is a remarkable coup, solving many of the miner’s problems.

Most importantly it allows the company to halve its $40 billion debts, which doubled to that level when chief executive Tom Albanese bought Canadian aluminum company Alcan for cash at the top of the commodity cycle in mid-2007.

After the cycle turned, and prices fell, exacerbated by the global economic downturn, Rio and Albanese’s position looked vulnerable. BHP had earlier tried to exploit this, proposing a mega 3.4-for-1 all share offer.

BHP said that bid, suggested in early 2008, would only be made if regulatory authorities around the world approved. That was never that likely. However, there should be less resistance to this morning’s proposals by the duo, apart from the usurped Chinese.

In order to combine their iron ore capabilities in Western Australia in a 50:50 joint venture BHP will pay Rio $5.8 billion, from its existing cash resources, to lift its share from 45 percent to 50 percent. That values the venture at $116 billion. Ten billion dollars of synergies are envisaged.

That cash fillip will help Rio in particular. Refinancing its Alcan-related debt was the trigger that pushed Rio into Chinalco’s hands in the first place. The Chinese investor initially took a 12 percent stake in Rio when the latter was first approached by BHP.

Its aim was to try and prevent such a dominant iron ore supplier being created. Ironically, the worst has now come to pass for the Chinese and such a force looks likely to be formed via the BHP Rio joint venture.

For Western democrats, in a week when the world remembers the 20th anniversary of the Tianamen Square protests, that is cheering news. The Chinalco option never looked that attractive once Rio, along with other miners and most equities rallied in March.

Rio’s share price has more than doubled from its low point in January. That made the alternative option, of raising the necessary cash to refinance the debt via a rights issue, a far cheaper and better option.

“This is not North Korea,” Alexander Denner, managing director of Icahn Partners, called out after Bruce Ross, Biogen’s chairman called a surprise midday recess. Icahn representatives said they believed the move signaled their slate had won sufficient votes to be elected.

By the end of the day, Biogen was telling shareholders it still did not know if Icahn — who has called for the biotechnology company to be split in two — had won two seats on the board. In fact, results may not be known for weeks. “Later in June we will receive the final report of the inspector of elections,” Ross told the shareholders who stayed for the whole session. Last year, Icahn had sought to sell the company, and his slate of directors was voted down by a ratio of 75 to 25.

While unlikely to make it to the supreme court, one can imagine the dramatic dispute leading vote counters to check for dimpled chads, and while the count is unlikely to make it to the supreme court, Minnesotans have at least as good a chance of having a new Senator at this point as Biogen shareholders do of knowing the make-up of their board by the end of the month.

Icahn owns a 5.6 percent stake in the company. He wants the board to consider breaking it into two parts, one focused on neurology and the other targeting cancer treatments. And it’s not like Biogen doesn’t have equally pressing fundamental issues, according to Baird analyst Chris Raymond:

“While BIIB’s ongoing proxy battle makes for good theater, we would continue to point out that no matter who sits on the board, this company faces numerous commercial challenges, not the least of which being what we perceive as significant threats to Avonex – still BIIB’s marquis franchise, accounting for ~50% of revenue for the foreseeable future. We remain cautious on the name.”

Raymond has a neutral rating on the stock, with a price target of $49, about 7 percent below its closing level after the meeting adjourned.

You’ve got to admit that when Ryanair’s chief executive Michael O’Leary (left) told journalists in London on Tuesday that the low-cost airliner was studying a bid to buy Germany’s flag carrier Lufthansa, he must have meant it as a joke.

For Ryanair to acquire Lufthansa is a bit like taking ice to the North Pole: a bit far-fetched now, but certainly plausible in the near future. “We are having a serious look at Lufthansa. We could almost buy it for cash,” O’Leary confidently told the media.

But he also qualified those comments with his usual effusive charm, saying: “We are not planning any bids for Lufthansa in the foreseeable future, but it is the only one of the other three large airlines that we would be interested in.”  That rules out British Airways, which is still in merger talks with Iberia. O’Leary doesn’t want the hassle of its pension fund. It also excludes Air France-KLM, the world’s largest airliner by revenues.

Despite Ryanair’s market capitalisation being almost as big as those two other carriers combined, it is nevertheless Lufthansa’s cheap market price that O’Leary says attracts him.

But even he has tacitly admitted that he has missed the most opportune moment to make a bid approach.
While Lufthansa’s shares have taken a bashing during the current economic downturn, they are already on their way back up, in line with the DAX-30. In March, Lufthansa’s shares hit a low point of €7.90. Now, they are hovering around €10. Nevertheless, with Ryanair’s market cap at €5.4 billion and Lufthansa’s at €4.7 billion, a paper merger is still plausible, with Ryanair taking majority control, but only if Lufthansa’s shareholders and the German state were to give their approval.

However, a cash deal looks unlikely, after Ryanair reported its full-year results today. Its net debt increased by 25 percent to €120 million and it made a net loss of €169.2 million compared with €390.7 million last year, mainly thanks to a €222.5 million write-down on its 29.8 percent stake in Aer Lingus. That raises the other question: How can Ryanair even contemplate taking over Lufthansa when it has tried twice and failed to acquire Ireland’s national carrier?

A deal that just a couple of days ago was thought to have at least a 50-50 chance of being pulled off between Irish drugmaker Elan and Bristol-Myers Squibb turned out to be dead on the table after our drugs reporter Rans Pierson reported that talks between the two last month never got as far as price.

Elan markets multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri with Biogen Idec, which is holding a shareholder meeting today. While the soured prospects for that deal may be on investors’ minds, the issue will only come up briefly if at all, as the company has a much bigger ownership issue to deal with in the form of activist investor of Carl Icahn.

In his second proxy fight for board representation at Biogen, Icahn wants Biogen’s board to consider splitting the biotechnology company into one firm focused on neurology and another focused on cancer. Icahn also wants Biogen to examine its cost structure and improve its relationships with its partners.

Last year, Icahn lost a proxy fight against Biogen. He had accused the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based biotech of sabotaging its own announced attempt to find a buyer.