DealBook: An Unusual Signature Draws Attention to Nu Skin

Photo Richard M. Nixon, whose name still carries weight.Credit Associated Press

Former United States presidents don't typically become bankers after their time in office. Nor, for that matter, do they come back from the dead.

But Richard M. Nixon, the nation's 37th president, appeared to have done both, at least according to a recent regulatory filing from Nu Skin, a multilevel marketing company that is based in Utah. In the filing is a document signed by a Richard M. Nixon.

The odd (and unsettling) signature caught the attention of John Hempton, a short seller and the chief investment officer of the hedge fund manager Bronte Capital, who wrote a blog post on Tuesday about the matter.

It turns out, however, that Mr. Nixon did not in fact sign the document. Rather, a JPMorgan Chase employee named Richard M. Hixson did.

The original confusion arose from a document attached to Nu Skin's latest quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The amendment, filed last month, contains the Richard M. Nixon signature on behalf of JPMorgan, as Mr. Hempton pointed out in his blog post.

According to his blog post, Mr. Hempton went to great lengths to try to get an answer. He searched the S.E.C.'s database and LinkedIn for people named "Richard M. Nixon" who worked at JPMorgan. The searches came up empty. He even searched an internal phone directory.

The answer turned out to be much simpler.

The actual JPMorgan Chase document outlining the loan facility in question is signed by Mr. Hixson, according to a person briefed on the original documents. Somewhere along the way, Nu Skin misspelled the name in its filing.

In a statement filed on Tuesday afternoon, Nu Skin said:

"The amendment was signed by Richard M. Hixson, senior underwriter, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., not Richard M. Nixon."

Nu Skin's most recent document signed Mr. Nixon is also signed by Ritch N. Wood, the company's chief financial officer.

Besides calling attention to the rather unusual signature — and raising questions about the regulatory filing itself — Mr. Hempton also provides information on the company's breach of loan covenants.

The explanation is somewhat complicated, but Mr. Hempton summarizes his findings as follows: "They breached their covenants and received what looks to be an (ex) Presidential Pardon."

In the end, no presidential pardon was necessary.

All of which goes to show, it's important to pay attention to details.

source : http://rss.nytimes.com/c/34625/f/640316/s/3e14f134/sc/4/l/0Ldealbook0Bnytimes0N0C20A140C0A90C0A20Can0Eunusual0Esignature0Edraws0Eattention0Eto0Enu0Eskin0C0Dpartner0Frss0Gemc0Frss/story01.htm