Lewis defends his position on M&B

The article also claimed that Lewis is being “ruthless” in attempting to buy the company on the cheap through his Piedmont investment vehicle — an expected offer of 230p per share is £1.30 less than the company’s share price at the start of the year.

A spokesman for Lewis said: “Joe’s reputation is a lot more than being ruthless and decisive; he is a long-term investor and builder of businesses in a number of industries, including hospitality (where he started his career). The growth and success of Tavistock Group in the US is testament to his long-term investment approach.

“Elsewhere, he is currently building a 7,000 acre ‘Medical City’ in Florida that will include a university and two hospitals. This project has already created 4,000 jobs and construction work worth $2bn.”

The PMA article also argued that previous shareholder Robbie Tchenguiz had also been “pushing the company around”, but at least his strategic plan would have delivered a short-tem profit for all shareholders — although it would have laden M&B with £4bn of unserviceable debt and would have led to massive writedowns.

The Lewis spokesman said: “We were particularly surprised that you seem to approve of the Tchenguiz plan for M&B. If that had gone ahead there is no question that M&B would now be in the hands of the banks — and how would the group’s management and staff feel about that?

“When Piedmont took its stake in M&B it viewed it as a long-term minority investment in the business.

“It is only considering this step now because it has become increasingly concerned about the instability in the business and the financial and commercial challenges it faces.

“I know you feel that Piedmont is responsible for much of this instability, but it is simply not true. The swaps debacle happened long before Piedmont bought its stake; nor is Piedmont responsible for the securitisation debt that is at the heart of many of M&B’s issues.

“If Piedmont does decide to bid (and last week’s statement made it clear this was not certain), its intention would be to be a long-term owner of the business, investing in it and developing it in a way that the group’s management and staff should welcome.”

Lewis also denied he was responsible for management instability at M&B.
“In terms of the management changes you cite — and there have been 34 board changes in the past 36 months (which again started before Piedmont was ever a shareholder) — it is also unfair that Piedmont is blamed for them.

“Yes, they did demand change in early 2010. Since then no one has been more concerned with the rate of change than them.”