One suggestion that came my way yesterday is that Walter Dods move to an active role in Hawaiian Telcom as its Chairman was a defensive move to save his own investment and those of his friends who also put money into the buyout of the former Verizon Hawaii. A merger might be one way to accomplish that. Just a thought.

That raises the question of just who those local investors with money at risk might be. I seem to recall a handful of news stories listing some of the local investors, but couldn’t find any of them in a quick scan yesterday.

I did turn up this description in the company’s application for a cable franchise filed with the state.

Applicant (Hawaiian Telcom Services Company, Inc) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc. (“Communications”), which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hawaiian Telcom Holdco, Inc. (“Holdco”). The shares of Holdco are owned by three Carlyle investments funds that in turn are owned by numerous private investors. An affiliate of The Carlyle Group is the general partner of the three investment funds.

Beneficial owners of 1% or more of the outstanding stock of Holdco. The following investment funds own all the shares of Holdco, received in exchange for cash contributions to Holdco:
Name of Investment Fund Number of Shares % of Ownership

Carlyle Partners I11 Hawaii, L.P. 880.1369 Shares 88.0
CP III Coinvestment, L.P. 49.7696 Shares 5 .O
Carlyle Hawaii Partners, L.P. 70.0935 Shares 7.0
Total 1,000.0000 Shares 100.0

I also found a “management rights agreement” between the different partnerships, but no list of individual local investors.

In the process, though, I did find this interesting tool from Business Week that compiles an extended list of executive contacts. For example, here’s the profile of attorney Jeff Watanabe’s long list of contacts. I’ve bookmarked this little tool for future reference.

Earlier in the week, a reader questioned the legality of one of the Obama campaign’s latest moves:

As an Obama supporter I hate to point this out, but I fear his opposition will. The terms of the latest fund-raising offer — donate $5 or more and you may win a trip to Denver and a seat for the open-air acceptance speech– seem to violate Hawaii gaming laws. If you have to provide something of value to get a chance at winning something of value, that’s a lottery, and $5 is something of value isn’t it?

I couldn’t see anything in their web pages about “not available where prohibited by state law” and it kind of looks like someone didn’t do their homework.

Am I just being too picky? You’re good at looking up statutes. Maybe I’m wrong.

Well, sure enough, the campaign had to change its offer after being informed that it violated Minnesota law and perhaps laws of other states. See the DemConWatch blog for details. A link has been added for those who want to qualify to win the trip but don’t want to or aren’t able to contribute.

The campaign has also released a report detailing the impact his economic plan would have on working women through a variety of tax credits, services, and a raise in the minimum wage.

A federal court in Washington State has ordered a group to disclose donors to an advertising campaign relating to a ballot issue. The group claimed that its free speech rights trumped the state’s disclosure law, but the judge disagreed. I’ll track down more info from this case later.

And Ms. Annie is Friday’s lead feline.

She spends a lot of time out hunting, but hasn’t returned any of her trophies to us for weeks now.

Anyway, there are several shots of Ms. Annie among today’s featured cats. Just click for more.