Reuters : 'No' vote ahead in New Caledonia referendum on independence from Franc

'No' vote ahead in New Caledonia referendum on independence from France
PARIS (Reuters) - Voters on the South Pacific archipelago of New Caledonia were on course to reject breaking away from France after nearly 170 years of colonial rule in a referendum on Sunday, partial results showed.

FILE PHOTO: A French flag flutters in the sky over the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, December 10, 2018. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer/File Photo
With votes from 249 out of 304 polling stations tallied, the partial results showed the “no” camp ahead with 54.8% support and expanding its lead as results came in from the capital, Noumea, traditionally a bastion of pro-Paris loyalty.
If the “no” vote is confirmed, it would be the second failed attempt by pro-independence supporters to gain full sovereignty in the past two years.
A surprise “yes” vote would deprive Paris of a foothold in a region where China is expanding its influence and dent the pride of a country whose former empire once spanned sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean

Tensions have long run deep between pro-independence indigenous Kanaks and descendants of colonial settlers who remain loyal to Paris.
More than 180,000 long-term residents of New Caledonia are registered to vote “yes” or “no” on the question: “Do you want New Caledonia to gain its full sovereignty and become independent?”
Sunday’s referendum was the second of up to three permitted under the terms of the 1998 Noumea Accord, an agreement enshrined in France’s constitution and which set out a 20-year path towards decolonisation.

Turnout was high - the partial results showed 86% of eligible voters had cast a ballot - after a stronger-than-expected independence vote in the 2018 referendum.
New Caledonia, an island chain some 1,200 km (750 miles) east of Australia and 20,000 km (12,500 miles) from Paris, enjoys a large degree of autonomy but depends heavily on France for matters such as defence and education.
Its economy is underpinned by annual French subsidies of some 1.3 billion euros ($1.5 billion) and nickel deposits that are estimated to represent 25% of the world’s total, and tourism.

The territory has, however, largely cut itself off from the outside world to shield itself from the coronavirus. It has registered only 27 cases of COVID-19.
If the “no vote” wins, a third referendum can be held within two years if a third of the local assembly votes in favour.

REuters : German police say suspicious device found on train near Cologne not ex

German police say suspicious device found on train near Cologne not explosive
BERLIN (Reuters) - Police in Germany said on Saturday a suspicious device found on a regional train overnight near the western city of Cologne was not explosive and did not pose a threat.
A statement said bomb specialists investigated the object, which contained nails and black powder, after it was discovered by a cleaner in a cardboard box hidden in one of the train’s compartments.

Bild newspaper had reported earlier that the device was a home-made bomb capable of causing serious injuries.
Federal police sniffer dogs confirmed the location and special forces x-rayed the box, it reported.

The newspaper cited investigators as saying it was still unclear whether it was a failed terrorist attack or an attempted blackmail threat.
Germany celebrated the 30th anniversary of its reunification on Saturday.

Business of Fashion : Chanel’s Sustainability Financing, Explained


WWD : EXCLUSIVE: Lancôme Acquires Organic Rose Domain in Grasse

EXCLUSIVE: Lancôme Acquires Organic Rose Domain in Grasse
The brand will use the flowers grown on the four-acre estate in its fragrances.

PARIS — Lancôme is getting back to its roots — literally and figuratively — with the acquisition of an estate growing roses and other aromatic plants in Grasse, France.
Called Domaine de la Rose by Lancôme, the four acres of organically farmed fields also include ancient terraces and a distillery. The brand will use plants from this land in its fragrances.
The move marks the first time Lancôme becomes a domain owner and rose producer. It’s also now a protector of the perfume-making tradition, as the Grasse region is a UNESCO classified intangible cultural heritage site and considered to be the birthplace of modern perfumery.
“The first time we visited this place there was something magic in it,” Françoise Lehmann, Lancôme global brand president, told WWD. “It’s a very old domain; a family has been cultivating it for five centuries.”


She said the purchase of the domain makes strategic sense for the brand.
“Lancôme has for a very long time been a perfumer, using roses in its fragrances,” said Lehmann. “It’s a strategic move, but it’s also a move from the heart, as has always been the case for Lancôme.”
Increasingly, luxury brands are acquiring entire chains of production to help ensure quality and sustainability, both in manufacturing and the surrounding environment.


The rose is Lancôme’s iconic symbol. Armand Petitjean, who founded the brand in 1935, was a rose aficionado. He owned a rose garden outside of Paris, in Ville d’Avray, where his wife cultivated the plants.
On the newly acquired domain, Lancôme will cultivate the Centifolia rose for use in its fragrances. Ultimately, the brand plans to use every element of the rose bush to create new active ingredients and no waste.
Olive, plum and fig trees also grow on the property, which Lancôme will continue to cultivate, as well as plants native to the region, including iris, jasmine, lavender, bitter orange, tuberose and osmanthus.
There will be ancient aromatic plants, too, such as immortelle, verbena and Madonna lily, to be used in the scents, plus beehives.
The Domaine de la Rose by Lancôme Courtesy of Bruno Vacherand-Denand/Lancôme
Lehmann said a goal is to make the new domain open to other stakeholders in order to share knowledge and savoir-faire.
Lancôme already sources roses from a five-acre field in Valensole, France, which are destined for the brand’s skin-care products.
Lancôme has also been sourcing Centifolia roses, jasmine and lavender from another field in Grasse for perfume-making.
Altogether, the three domains equal 10 acres.
“The interesting thing for us as a brand,” said Lehmann, “is to have this ecosystem of roses, where we have the roses [organically] cultivated in Valensole. Those rose extracts are put in our skin-care products, through biotech or green tech, and the Grasse flowers in our fragrances.”
Provence serves as an anchor for Lancôme, for both its skin-care and perfume products, she said, adding they are made with traditional practices as well as advanced science.
Lancôme, a L’Oréal-owned brand, is sold in 130 countries worldwide.

WWD : EXCLUSIVE: First Look at Givenchy by Matthew Williams

EXCLUSIVE: First Look at Givenchy by Matthew Williams
The silhouette suggests a streamlined, tailoring-driven approach to the storied French couture house.


The white, fringed organza coat has clean, angular lines and flecks of shine; the top is laser cut, and the pants are straight, ending in a long, stiffened cuff.
In a WWD exclusive, Matthew Williams, the new creative director of Givenchy, shared the first full women’s look from his debut spring 2021 collection, to be unveiled tonight in Paris.
The silhouette suggests a tailoring-driven approach to the storied French couture house, while reflecting the modernism associated with Williams’ 1017 Alyx 9SM brand and his obsession with cutting-edge craftsmanship.
The 425,000 people who follow the American designer on Instagram would have noticed him wearing intensely shredded jeans of late, foreshadowing the surface texture of his Givenchy top, the horizontal shreds of fil coupé jacquard mounted on organza.


A look from Givenchy’s spring 2021 collection designed by Matthew Williams. Dominique Maitre/WWD
It’s also clear Williams didn’t wipe the product slate clean. His first look is accessorized by a new version of Givenchy’s hit Antigona bag, with elongated straps and a more streamlined élan. It was first introduced a decade ago.
A key ringleader of the luxury streetwear scene, Williams joined Givenchy last June and became the French house’s seventh couturier. At the time, the designer vowed that Givenchy’s new era would be one “based on modernity and inclusivity.”
He is to unveil his first designs for men and women at 8 p.m. Paris time. While Givenchy is on the official calendar of Paris Fashion Week — and one of the most anticipated debuts of the season — Williams opted to forego the runway and simply release images of his collection. A creative film is to follow in the weeks to come.
While perhaps best known for his roller-coaster buckle and collaborations with Nike, Moncler and Dior, Williams, 34, is seen as a driven, versatile fashion talent with a sharp vision, strong cultural and artistic connections, and formidable technical chops.

FT : Neiman Marcus: how a creditor’s crusade against private equity power went w

Neiman Marcus: how a creditor’s crusade against private equity power went wrong
Dan Kamensky wanted to expose how lenders and bondholders get a raw deal in restructurings but could now face prosecution

When Neiman Marcus filed for bankruptcy in May it felt like an American tragedy. The closure of the 113-year-old luxury department store chain had been triggered by lockdowns to control the coronavirus pandemic, leaving its 14,000 workers on furlough. There was concern among creditors and lenders that a long-drawn out Chapter 11 process could lead to the retailer’s liquidation.

Yet, for one hedge fund manager the court-supervised process represented an opportunity. Dan Kamensky, the founder of a small hedge fund, Marble Ridge Capital, had spent the previous two years brawling with Neiman’s owners, Ares Management — a $165bn California asset manager — and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Mr Kamensky had no interest in taking over Neiman Marcus. Rather his grievance was over a complex debt restructuring in 2019 where he claimed that the chain store’s owners had improperly seized the company’s prized asset, online retailer MyTheresa, away from creditors.

Ares and CPPIB saw taking control of MyTheresa as a move that could enable Neiman’s shareholders and its creditors to salvage at least some value from an otherwise disastrous $6bn leveraged buyout. But the move, claimed Mr Kamensky, had cheated creditors. His campaign, however, had gained little traction. Now with Neiman in front of a federal bankruptcy judge he saw a fresh chance to make his argument in court.

The 47-year-old former lawyer had assembled a case not just focused on what he believed was the abuse of creditors by private equity firms. Mr Kamensky also wanted to shine the light on what he said were systemic problems, where top law firms and investment banks worked with buyout groups to crush lenders and bondholders who otherwise should have become the rightful owners of failed companies. 

By late July, a Houston bankruptcy court had aired his allegations that Ares and CPPIB had fraudulently transferred MyTheresa away from creditors. Two separate court-ordered investigations found at least “viable” claims of fraudulent transfers. And Mr Kamensky had helped wring out a $172m settlement for junior Neiman creditors including the likes of Estee Lauder and Chanel.

The victory was shortlived. At 6am on September 3, FBI agents arrested Mr Kamensky at his suburban New York home on suspicion of fraud, extortion and bribery after he was accused of pressuring a rival not to bid for assets won in the settlement so Marble Ridge could buy them at a cheaper price. Prior to the criminal allegations, Mr Kamensky admitted to Department of Justice investigators that by trying to influence a rival bidder he had made a “grave mistake”.

The arrest shocked Wall Street. And while his plight has elicited little sympathy, Mr Kamensky’s crusade over private equity aggression has struck a chord with many in the distressed debt market. Creditors like Marble Ridge for years had been complaining about how buyout firms with stakes in companies such as Toys R Us and J Crew had been pushing legal and ethical boundaries to avoid having their investments wiped out.

Mr Kamensky, maligned at once by the owners of Neiman Marcus and shunned by some fellow creditors, had been the rare hedge fund manager willing to expose the ugliness of the private equity/hedge fund wars. That has now been overshadowed by his own misbehaviour. 

“There used to be a sense that private equity firms needed to take care of the lenders that funded their LBOs,” says Jared Ellias, a former bankruptcy lawyer who is a professor at the University of California, Hastings. “Now, they don't seem to care at all and they have no qualms about burning their lenders really badly.”

The $6bn LBO
Anthony Ressler made his name as a junk bond banker at Drexel Burnham Lambert in the 1980s. After Drexel’s bankruptcy he and Leon Black — his brother in-law — joined forces to form Apollo Global Management. In 1997, Mr Ressler departed Apollo to form his own investment company named after the Greek god of war, Ares, a sibling of Apollo.

In 2013, Ares announced, in partnership with CPPIB, its acquisition of Neiman Marcus for $6bn. It was one of the biggest leveraged buyouts since the financial crisis. Yet the two investment groups had put in less than $1.5bn combined of the Neiman Marcus purchase price and by 2017, the retailer was struggling under the weight of nearly $5bn of buyout debt with sales and profit in steady decline.

By 2018 it wanted to refinance its debts. But by September of that year the gap between the owners and creditors — Neiman was asking them to accept big losses to the face value of their holdings — was so large that the talks collapsed. Bankruptcy seemed inevitable. But that would have wiped out Ares and CPPIB. Instead the duo looked for an alternative. In 2014 Neiman had bought a promising German ecommerce retailer, MyTheresa.com, for $200m. It was a hedge against the declining physical retail sales at its 42 stores.

MyTheresa was almost doubling revenue every two years and by 2019 it had an estimated valuation of at least $500m. Almost two years earlier in March 2017 while MyTheresa was prospering, Neiman and its advisers had made a seemingly esoteric move. Taking advantage of bond and loan documents that all sides agree had been loosely written, Neiman designated the online business as a so-called “unrestricted subsidiary”, ending any oversight creditors had over MyTheresa. It was an unremarkable move, the significance of which only became apparent in September 2018 with the collapse of the refinancing talks.

With $3bn of debt falling due in 2020 Ares and CPPIB were facing a Neiman bankruptcy. At this stage, private equity groups often walk away, accept their losses, and hand over the keys of an overleveraged company to creditors. But in an era of covenant-lite and covenant free debt — where companies are able to avoid defaults — Ares had another option. With MyTheresa now an unrestricted subsidiary, the unit was the bargaining chip that Neiman needed to keep its investment alive. Neiman, in September 2018, shifted MyTheresa into a unit where creditors no longer had a claim on it: it was now the sole property of Ares and CPPIB.

After announcing the transfer, the two owners called back the creditor factions and told them that Neiman would now like to resume refinancing talks. Over the next five months, the sides clawed their way to a deal that pushed out Neiman’s most imminent debt maturity to 2022. In the debt exchange, existing lenders would swap into new loans at higher interest rates and receive some cash for their existing holdings. Unsecured bondholders would swap into secured notes. New bonds would be sold to raise fresh cash. And crucially, Ares and CPPIB would hand back the first $450m in value of MyTheresa to those bondholders.

Privately many of the Neiman creditors were furious. Yet, virtually all of them got on board with the deal. There was only one major holdout: Mr Kamensky.

Restructuring resistance
In September 2018, Mr Kamensky wrote a public letter blasting Neiman Marcus for snatching MyTheresa even as other creditors were trying to cut a deal. He wrote that the purpose of the transfer was to “strip an important and valuable asset away from creditors of the company and to gift that asset to Ares and CPPIB”. He later filed a lawsuit in Texas against Neiman Marcus, accusing its private equity owners of executing an “intentional fraudulent transfer” of MyTheresa. 

Sceptics, including some fellow creditors, believed Mr Kamensky was showboating to raise his own profile and that of his hedge fund when a compromise deal was possible.

Having begun his career as a restructuring lawyer at Sidley Austin, Mr Kamensky then made his name as a distressed debt investor at hedge fund Paulson & Co. He was part of a team that invested in Caesars Entertainment, where creditors secured a $6bn settlement pursuing fraudulent transfer claims against the casino chain’s private equity owners.

By the time the bankruptcy proceedings had started Ares and CPPIB had struck a deal to hand over the retail chain to its senior lenders such as Pimco and Davidson Kempner, leaving junior creditors to receive just cents on the dollar. But Chapter 11 allowed all stakeholders to have a voice, even bit-part players like Marble Ridge which owned just $60m in Neiman debt.

In court documents, Mr Kamensky, alleged a broad conspiracy around the MyTheresa transfer, accusing law firm Kirkland & Ellis and investment bank Lazard of giving improper cover to Neiman. The two firms were hired as restructuring advisers by the retailer in 2017 and helped design the MyTheresa transfer and subsequent refinancing. Neither firm responded to a request for comment. But in court documents, Neiman insisted the MyTheresa transactions had been crafted properly, with the help of “leading financial advisers” and “world class law firms”.

Mr Kamensky wrote in a court paper that “Kirkland and Lazard are not in a position and cannot be expected to impartially investigate, analyse and potentially challenge transactions that they themselves designed, implemented and subsequently took steps to insulate, all for the exclusive benefit of the LBO sponsors [Ares and CPPIB].”

At a court hearing in Houston in late May, Marble Ridge argued for an independent investigation into the MyTheresa transaction. But few expected anything to derail an efficient bankruptcy as Neiman Marcus was racing to avoid a liquidation. And Mr Kamensky did not have the full backing of other creditors.

Marc Beilinson, a Neiman independent director, then testified. He sought to reassure the court that an investigation he was conducting into MyTheresa would look into Mr Kamensky’s claims. But he stumbled horribly when Judge David Jones asked him to explain his job as an independent director.

Judge Jones later said in court that “what he [Beilinson] gave me was a line of bull. And I don’t appreciate it . . . I expect transparency, I expect forthrightness, and I got neither today from him . . . I do not want to see a fiduciary to this estate ever appear in front of me again unprepared, uneducated and borderline incompetent. Never.”

Mr Kamensky had criticised the governance of Neiman Marcus, accusing directors of being well-paid stooges for Ares and CPPIB. The testimony of Mr Beilinson — who said in court that he had served as a director at around 20 different companies over his career including several that were distressed or in bankruptcy — seemed to vindicate some of that criticism.

His inability to explain his role shone an uncomfortable light on directors in private equity-owned businesses who are typically recruited by law firms. Almost all are retired lawyers, bankers, investors or executives looking for a lucrative but often untaxing job. They are often seen by critics, as reliable rubber-stamps for private equity firms.

After the Beilinson testimony a court ordered investigation conducted by a committee of unsecured creditors — including Mr Kamensky — concluded in July that Neiman Marcus was deeply insolvent at the time of the transfer of ownership of MyTheresa. It said Ares and CPPIB had “pilfered at least hundreds of millions of dollars of value” in the MyTheresa transaction.

The insolvency finding carried a disturbing implication. If correct, it would mean that the company’s directors — including independents — had a broader fiduciary duty to creditors in addition to just shareholders at the time of the transfer. This raised the question of whether they should have blocked the no-value MyTheresa transfer. Lazard and Kirkland & Ellis had helped shape Neiman’s view, according to the report, that it was solvent in 2018 — even as its debt was trading for 62 cents on the dollar.

Kamensky overplays his hand
Ares dismissed the creditors’ committee report as a biased, pre-determined hit job. But after Mr Beilinson quit, Scott Vogel, the other independent director and a veteran distressed debt investor, conducted his own inquiry. He wrote to the court in late July that the reorganised Neiman company holds “viable claims based in constructive fraudulent conveyance because the company was likely insolvent at the time of the [MyTheresa] distribution”.

Mr Kamensky’s doggedness, once dismissed as futile, had paid off. In exchange for being released from further legal liability and ending the dispute, Ares and CPPIB agreed to give back $172m to unsecured creditors, mostly in MyTheresa preferred stock.

Realising that many of the other junior creditors would be uninterested in taking MyTheresa equity and waiting years for Neiman to sell it, Mr Kamensky believed he could wring some extra profit from the opportunity he had created. So he offered to buy out other creditors for 20 cents on the dollar.

After discovering that the investment bank Jefferies was also considering a bid — one higher than his — for the MyTheresa shares, Mr Kamensky called the investment bank threatening to stop doing business with Jefferies, where he was a client, if they got in his way. Having spent nearly $4m fighting Neiman Marcus, he explained, that he was determined to enjoy the spoils. In chat messages sent through Bloomberg terminals, Mr Kamensky used intimidating language — “DO NOT SEND IN A BID” read one of them, according to an investigation published by the Department of Justice. Jefferies later reported Mr Kamensky’s actions to other creditors.

“I am sorry to see the ugly turn of events,” says Sara Tirschwell, a longtime distressed debt investor who had once planned to go into business with Mr Kamensky. “But happy that Dan finally exposed the bad faith schemes that private equity sponsors use to keep assets out of reach from creditors”.

Ares insists that the MyTheresa transaction was above board and was designed to maximise value for all stakeholders in Neiman Marcus. The firm has pointed out that it had never taken any fees or dividends out of the retail business or missed a principal or interest payment to creditors. And in the 2019 refinancing transaction, Ares had invested another $100m that now has been mostly lost — further evidence, its supporters argue, that it believed the company was solvent and acted in good faith.

Neiman Marcus exited Chapter 11 in late September at just a $2bn valuation. MyTheresa remains a separate company. Marble Ridge is in the process of dissolving its operations. And while the $172m for unsecured creditors remains in a trust, Mr Kamensky — whose campaign wrung the payment out of Neiman Marcus — is trying to avoid jail.

WSJ : Facebook Says Government Breakup of Instagram, WhatsApp Would Be ‘Complete

Facebook Says Government Breakup of Instagram, WhatsApp Would Be ‘Complete Nonstarter’
Social giant prepares defense against antitrust scrutiny from federal enforcers

A government effort to break up Facebook Inc. FB -2.51% from Instagram and WhatsApp would defy established law, cost billions of dollars and harm consumers, according to a paper company lawyers have prepared in the wake of rising antitrust legal threats.

The 14-page document, produced by lawyers at Sidley Austin LLP and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, offers a preview of the social-media giant’s defense as federal antitrust enforcers and members of Congress continue to pursue investigations into Facebook’s power and past competitive behavior. Probes of other technology companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. are also ongoing.

The House Antitrust Subcommittee this month is expected to release the findings of its investigation into Facebook and other companies.

The legal document, while light on legal citations and technical language, offers a window into how Facebook may defend itself if it is sued on antitrust grounds and reflects its lawyers’ sense that any attempts to force a divestiture of WhatsApp or Instagram would be fought in both the public square and the courtroom.

Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 were examined by the Federal Trade Commission, which closed its reviews without issuing an objection. The company made big investments to boost growth on those platforms and they now share numerous operations that are integrated. In the paper, Facebook says unwinding the deals would be nearly impossible to achieve, forcing the company to spend billions of dollars maintaining separate systems, weakening security and harming users’ experience.

“A ‘breakup’ of Facebook is thus a complete nonstarter,” the paper declares.

Facebook’s contention that past government inaction on the acquisitions should limit current action is “surprisingly weak,” said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor. A government antitrust case against the company would likely rely on the argument that Facebook made serial acquisitions to reduce competition, a question that wasn’t considered when the Federal Trade Commission originally chose not to oppose the Instagram and WhatsApp deals, he said.

“There’s no way a decision on one merger would be preclusive,” he said, noting that the FTC’s reviews of both acquisitions had reserved the right to revisit the deals at a later time.

Facebook’s claim regarding the difficulty of a potential breakup would also be unlikely to carry legal weight. “There is no ‘it’s too hard’ defense,” Mr. Wu said.

The Journal reported last month that the FTC was preparing to file a potential complaint against Facebook before year’s end, part of a broader wave of government probes targeting Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Google. Against a backdrop of concerns about Facebook’s impact on politics, privacy and the regulation of speech, the company’s critics have argued that key Facebook acquisitions—including Instagram and WhatsApp—illegally reduced competition in social media.

Facebook declined to discuss the information in the memo. The FTC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

This summer, the antitrust subcommittee published 2012 emails in which Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg cited the difficulty of competing with Instagram as a rationale for buying the photo-based social media company, which at the time had 30 million users but only 13 employees.

“There are network effects around social products and a finite number of different social mechanics to invent,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in an email. “Once someone wins at a specific mechanic, it’s difficult for others to supplant them without doing something different.”

In another message Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged that a rationale for buying Instagram would be to “neutralize a competitor,” before backtracking in a later email.

While the emails were new to Congress and the public, they weren’t a surprise to antitrust enforcers that had cleared the merger, Facebook noted.

“The FTC reviewed those documents along with the rest of a massive investigatory record, and it interviewed the companies’ senior executives, including both CEOs,” Facebook’s paper says. The commission “voted 5-0 to let the companies close their deal.”

For the government to revisit the Instagram acquisition or Facebook’s 2014 WhatsApp acquisition years later—after the company had invested heavily to make the deals successful—would “send a disquieting message to the business community,” the paper says.

WSJ : White House Gives Mixed Signals on Trump’s Health

White House Gives Mixed Signals on Trump’s Health
Doctor says he is happy with president’s condition, but another person familiar with the U.S. leader’s health suggests cause for concern

WASHINGTON—People close to President Trump offered conflicting messages about his health on Saturday after he tested positive for coronavirus, as his physician said he was happy with the U.S. leader’s condition while a person familiar with Mr. Trump’s health said there was more cause for concern.

In a briefing in front of the Walter Reed military hospital Saturday, Dr. Sean Conley said that the president’s symptoms of a mild cough, nasal congestion and fatigue were improving and that he hadn’t had a fever for 24 hours. But he didn’t give a date for the president’s release and declined to provide a definitive answer on whether Mr. Trump had ever received supplemental oxygen, despite repeated pressing.

After Dr. Conley concluded his briefing, a person familiar with the president’s health told reporters that Mr. Trump’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning and that the next 48 hours would be critical. “We’re still not on a clear path to a full recovery,” the person said.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to requests for clarification on the president’s condition.

From the hospital Saturday, Mr. Trump thanked the medical personnel at Walter Reed, adding: “With their help, I am feeling well!”

The mixed messages emanating from Walter Reed made it difficult to discern the state of the president’s health a day after he was admitted and 36 hours after he disclosed he had tested positive.

Dr. Conley declined to give a date for when Mr. Trump last tested negative, as questions persisted about when the White House learned of the president’s exposure and subsequent positive test. Dr. Conley also referred to the president as being 72 hours into his diagnosis, which would put the date of his positive test on Wednesday. A White House official subsequently said Dr. Conley meant to say it was the third day since the president was diagnosed Thursday night, not that 72 hours had passed since his diagnosis.

In a memo hours after his briefing concluded on Saturday, Dr. Conley said the president had been diagnosed on the evening of Oct. 1, which was Thursday.

On whether the president had ever received oxygen, Dr. Conley said: “Thursday no oxygen, none at this moment, and yesterday with the team while we were all here, he was not on oxygen.”

Mr. Trump was hospitalized on Friday following a positive Covid-19 test early that day for him and first lady Melania Trump, hours after senior White House adviser Hope Hicks was reported to test positive.

The White House said the move was made out of an “abundance of caution.” But it raised questions about his health, his government and his re-election bid one month before election day.

As the president was treated, a cascading list of aides and allies revealed positive test results. Many of them were among the attendees of a Rose Garden ceremony last Saturday where Mr. Trump announced his Supreme Court nominee, which featured close seating and little mask-wearing.

The list included former White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina and the Rev. John Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame.

The president’s campaign manager Bill Stepien, who was with the president for debate preparation last weekend and at the first presidential debate in Cleveland, also tested positive, as did former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was involved in debate preparation. Other White House and campaign aides reported negative tests, and some were awaiting results.

The revelation of Mr. Trump’s infection put campaign travel on hold and prompted senior aides to get tests and track down people who may have been exposed to the virus.

Vice President Mike Pence has tested negative twice in the last two days and hasn’t quarantined on the advice of his doctor. The Trump campaign said Saturday that the vice president would hold a campaign event in Arizona on Thursday.

Late Friday evening, Dr. Conley said in a memo that the president had completed his first dose of remdesivir, which is among the few drugs that have been shown to treat Covid-19 and to have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for such use.

Mr. Stepien was experiencing mild symptoms and plans to quarantine until he recovers, the campaign said. Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel also tested positive earlier this week, the GOP said.

Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson tested positive on Friday, his spokesman said. Mr. Johnson is the third senator this week to test positive for the virus.

As Mr. Trump canceled trips to Florida and Wisconsin, it remained unclear when—or if—the president would be able to return to the campaign trail and whether he would be able to participate in the remaining two debates with Democratic rival Joe Biden. Mr. Biden on Friday tested negative for the virus, his campaign said.

Mr. Trump’s positive test results underscored the unrelenting nature of the virus as Americans grapple with the trade-offs between reopening businesses and schools and staying safe. The diagnoses exposed severe holes in the White House’s Covid-19 protocol, which has largely consisted of frequent rapid tests. Health experts say that conducting frequent tests without also wearing masks and social distancing is an ineffective way of combating the virus, since it can take days for a person to test positive after being infected.

The White House will continue to make mask-wearing optional on its grounds, an official said Friday.

White House officials said the president’s diagnosis wouldn’t affect his governing. White House communications director Alyssa Farah said there would be no transfer of power with the president’s move to Walter Reed.

Still, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Pence to host a scheduled call in his place on Friday afternoon.

The news that the president was ill rattled markets and sent a shock wave through Washington, which is grappling with a Supreme Court nomination, trillion-dollar-plus coronavirus aid talks and an election that will decide control of the White House and Congress just a month away. It also creates potential uncertainty for his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Republicans are trying to get confirmed by Election Day.

Democrats called for postponing Judge Barrett’s confirmation, arguing that the infection of two senators could make it difficult to hold in-person hearings. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who both spoke with Mr. Trump on Friday, said they plan to move forward.

While many Covid-19 patients recover without suffering serious illness, Mr. Trump’s age of 74 puts him at higher risk from the virus, as does his obesity. According to the CDC, people in their 60s and 70s are “at higher risk for severe illness than people in their 50s.”

If the president’s condition were to worsen, he could temporarily transfer power to Mr. Pence under the 25th Amendment. Such a transfer has happened only three times in U.S. history, when then-presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush underwent colonoscopies. In other incidents, such as when Mr. Reagan was shot and had to undergo emergency surgery in 1981, power wasn’t formally transferred.