Why the merger is still not really a "done deal"

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

<http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2004/205960.htm>

MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2004

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES DIVESTITURES IN CINGULAR WIRELESS'S
ACQUISITION OF AT&T WIRELESS

...

The Department's Antitrust Division filed a civil lawsuit today in
U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. to block the proposed
transaction. At the same time, the Department filed a proposed
settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the
Department's competitive concerns and the lawsuit. The Department was
joined in its lawsuit and proposed settlement by the Attorneys
General of the states of Texas and Connecticut.

...

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
(202-514-5621).

At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.

###

04-718

In other words, it's not really a "done deal" -- though unlikely, the court
could still reject the proposed settlement, based on public comment and/or
findings by the court. The court could even order the merger to be undone.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

> MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2004

That is two day old news!
The day old news makes this stuff irrelevant.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-254A1.pdf

>
> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES DIVESTITURES IN CINGULAR WIRELESS'S
> ACQUISITION OF AT&T WIRELESS
>

Yes, as the day old news shows.
Cingular accepted the divestures that the DOJ wanted!
That is why they said that both the FCC and the DOJ signed off on it.

> ...
>
> The Department's Antitrust Division filed a civil lawsuit today in
> U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. to block the proposed
> transaction. At the same time, the Department filed a proposed
> settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the
> Department's competitive concerns and the lawsuit. The Department was
> joined in its lawsuit and proposed settlement by the Attorneys
> General of the states of Texas and Connecticut.
>

"At the same time, the Department filed a proposed
settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the
Department's competitive concerns and the lawsuit."

Cingular accepted the terms on the very same day they was proposed.
When cingular said they would accept the terms,
without contest, the court approved the terms.
Then cingular bought ATT under the terms listed in the pdf,
and made it public the next day.

When they approved the terms, then the lawsuit ceased to exist.
And what you listed below becomes null and void.

Cingular accepted the terms that they had 120 days to divest said
properties.
If they don't divest them in that time, then they are transferred to a
divesture trustee.
But the merger is a done deal.
There is nothing anyone can do.
It's already too late to cry now.

> ...
>
> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
> (202-514-5621).
>
> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.
>
> ###
>
> 04-718

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <XoWfd.789095$Gx4.707773@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Wed, 27 Oct
2004 23:43:51 GMT, "N9WOS" <N9WOS@nobug.att.net> wrote:

>"At the same time, the Department filed a proposed
>settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the
>Department's competitive concerns and the lawsuit."
>
>Cingular accepted the terms on the very same day they was proposed.
>When cingular said they would accept the terms,
>without contest, the court approved the terms.
>Then cingular bought ATT under the terms listed in the pdf,
>and made it public the next day.
>
>When they approved the terms, then the lawsuit ceased to exist.
>And what you listed below becomes null and void.
>
>Cingular accepted the terms that they had 120 days to divest said
>properties.
>If they don't divest them in that time, then they are transferred to a
>divesture trustee.
>But the merger is a done deal.
>There is nothing anyone can do.
>It's already too late to cry now.


The Tunney Act still applies -- see below:


>> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
>> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
>> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
>> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
>> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
>> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
>> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
>> (202-514-5621).
>>
>> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
>> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
>> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.
>>
>> ###
>>
>> 04-718

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <WPVfd.1481$_3.23017@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> <http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2004/205960.htm>
>
> MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2004
>
> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES DIVESTITURES IN CINGULAR WIRELESS'S
> ACQUISITION OF AT&T WIRELESS
>
> ...
>
> The Department's Antitrust Division filed a civil lawsuit today in
> U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. to block the proposed
> transaction. At the same time, the Department filed a proposed
> settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the
> Department's competitive concerns and the lawsuit. The Department was
> joined in its lawsuit and proposed settlement by the Attorneys
> General of the states of Texas and Connecticut.
>
> ...
>
> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
> (202-514-5621).
>
> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.
>
> ###
>
> 04-718
>
> In other words, it's not really a "done deal" -- though unlikely, the court
> could still reject the proposed settlement, based on public comment and/or
> findings by the court. The court could even order the merger to be undone.

And the last time that happened after Justice and FCC approved was......


Nice try. IT IS A DONE DEAL, because Cingular agreed with all the
proposed Divestitures before approval was announced.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <CuWfd.1491$_3.23056@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <XoWfd.789095$Gx4.707773@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Wed, 27 Oct
> 2004 23:43:51 GMT, "N9WOS" <N9WOS@nobug.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"At the same time, the Department filed a proposed
> >settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the
> >Department's competitive concerns and the lawsuit."
> >
> >Cingular accepted the terms on the very same day they was proposed.
> >When cingular said they would accept the terms,
> >without contest, the court approved the terms.
> >Then cingular bought ATT under the terms listed in the pdf,
> >and made it public the next day.
> >
> >When they approved the terms, then the lawsuit ceased to exist.
> >And what you listed below becomes null and void.
> >
> >Cingular accepted the terms that they had 120 days to divest said
> >properties.
> >If they don't divest them in that time, then they are transferred to a
> >divesture trustee.
> >But the merger is a done deal.
> >There is nothing anyone can do.
> >It's already too late to cry now.
>
>
> The Tunney Act still applies -- see below:
>
>
> >> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
> >> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
> >> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
> >> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
> >> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
> >> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
> >> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
> >> (202-514-5621).
> >>
> >> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
> >> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
> >> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.
> >>
> >> ###
> >>
> >> 04-718

With the Justice Dept and FCC already finding it is in the Public
Interest, there is ZERO chance the court will do anything but rubber
stamp the purchase, that happened Tuesday. By 60 days it will be W A Y
to late to unwind things.

Go try and buy some AWE stock.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-67AC65.19370827102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 28 Oct
2004 00:37:31 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <CuWfd.1491$_3.23056@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> >> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
>> >> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
>> >> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
>> >> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
>> >> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
>> >> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
>> >> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
>> >> (202-514-5621).
>> >>
>> >> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
>> >> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
>> >> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.

>With the Justice Dept and FCC already finding it is in the Public
>Interest, there is ZERO chance the court will do anything but rubber
>stamp the purchase, that happened Tuesday.

The Order cannot actually be entered until the end of the 60-day comment
period.

>By 60 days it will be W A Y
>to late to unwind things.

On the contrary.

>Go try and buy some AWE stock.

Listing has nothing to do with court action.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:5lXfd.1514$_3.23167@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-67AC65.19370827102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 28 Oct
> 2004 00:37:31 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <CuWfd.1491$_3.23056@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
> >> >> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
> >> >> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written
comments
> >> >> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period
to
> >> >> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
> >> >> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
> >> >> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
> >> >> (202-514-5621).
> >> >>
> >> >> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
> >> >> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
> >> >> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.
>
> >With the Justice Dept and FCC already finding it is in the Public
> >Interest, there is ZERO chance the court will do anything but rubber
> >stamp the purchase, that happened Tuesday.
>
> The Order cannot actually be entered until the end of the 60-day comment
> period.

Pretty petty and pointless argument.

>
> >By 60 days it will be W A Y
> >to late to unwind things.
>
> On the contrary.

No- the troll is right. Stop harping on ceremonial and trivial procedures
and accept the fact that the merger is complete.

>
> >Go try and buy some AWE stock.
>
> Listing has nothing to do with court action.

There is no court action- the parties have settled.

>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-1F6549.19343227102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 28 Oct
2004 00:34:55 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <WPVfd.1481$_3.23017@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
>> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
>> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
>> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
>> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
>> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
>> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
>> (202-514-5621).
>>
>> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
>> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
>> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.

>> In other words, it's not really a "done deal" -- though unlikely, the court
>> could still reject the proposed settlement, based on public comment and/or
>> findings by the court. The court could even order the merger to be undone.
>
>And the last time that happened after Justice and FCC approved was......
>
>Nice try. IT IS A DONE DEAL, because Cingular agreed with all the
>proposed Divestitures before approval was announced.

As a matter of law, it's not a "done deal" until the Order is actually entered
by the Court, which cannot happen until the end of the 60 day comment period.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

gee you arent afraid of losing business are you?



it's done. just like the world series.



move on


>Subject: Re: The merger is a "done deal" to everyone but NAVAS
>From: John Navas spamfilter0@navasgroup.com
>Date: 10/27/2004 8:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8nXfd.1518$_3.23020@typhoon.sonic.net>
>
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <jzwick3-1F6549.19343227102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 28 Oct
>2004 00:34:55 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <WPVfd.1481$_3.23017@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
>>> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
>>> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
>>> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
>>> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
>>> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
>>> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
>>> (202-514-5621).
>>>
>>> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
>>> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
>>> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.
>
>>> In other words, it's not really a "done deal" -- though unlikely, the
>court
>>> could still reject the proposed settlement, based on public comment and/or
>>> findings by the court. The court could even order the merger to be
>undone.
>>
>>And the last time that happened after Justice and FCC approved was......
>>
>>Nice try. IT IS A DONE DEAL, because Cingular agreed with all the
>>proposed Divestitures before approval was announced.
>
>As a matter of law, it's not a "done deal" until the Order is actually
>entered
>by the Court, which cannot happen until the end of the 60 day comment period.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Jeff Ream

I am the drummer your color guard captain warned you about

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Good job John Navas, good investigative work. Or are you personally
hoping these two merging will not really be cleared through?...
>
> >> As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement will be
> >> published in The Federal Register, along with the Department's
> >> competitive impact statement. Any person may submit written comments
> >> concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to
> >> Nancy M. Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
> >> Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice,
> >> 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C. 20530
> >> (202-514-5621).
> >>
> >> At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District
> >> Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed consent
> >> decree upon finding that it is in the public interest.
>
> >> In other words, it's not really a "done deal" -- though unlikely, the court
> >> could still reject the proposed settlement, based on public comment and/or
> >> findings by the court. The court could even order the merger to be undone.
> >
> >And the last time that happened after Justice and FCC approved was......
> >
> >Nice try. IT IS A DONE DEAL, because Cingular agreed with all the
> >proposed Divestitures before approval was announced.
>
> As a matter of law, it's not a "done deal" until the Order is actually entered
> by the Court, which cannot happen until the end of the 60 day comment period.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <a9ce8e18.0410280617.8aeb395@posting.google.com> on 28 Oct 2004 07:17:53
-0700, mariusdb@gmail.com (M. D. Borca) wrote:

>> As a matter of law, it's not a "done deal" until the Order is actually entered
>> by the Court, which cannot happen until the end of the 60 day comment period.

>Good job John Navas, good investigative work.

Thank you.

>Or are you personally
>hoping these two merging will not really be cleared through?...

No -- I think it makes sense all around, notwithstanding the objections of
consumer groups and competitors, and I think it's very likely to go through
unchanged.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <20041028002106.29577.00001492@mb-m05.aol.com> on 28 Oct 2004 04:21:06 GMT,
jeffsnewjetta@aol.comnospam (Jeff Ream) wrote:

>gee you arent afraid of losing business are you?

No. I have nothing at stake. And you?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

just some stocks anymore. i got out of the game and into much better things,
tho i do pay attention after 7 years of fun.


>Subject: Re: The merger is a "done deal" to everyone but NAVAS
>From: John Navas spamfilter0@navasgroup.com
>Date: 10/28/2004 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <q5dgd.1796$_3.24619@typhoon.sonic.net>
>
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <20041028002106.29577.00001492@mb-m05.aol.com> on 28 Oct 2004 04:21:06
>GMT,
>jeffsnewjetta@aol.comnospam (Jeff Ream) wrote:
>
>>gee you arent afraid of losing business are you?
>
>No. I have nothing at stake. And you?
>
>--
>Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Jeff Ream

I am the drummer your color guard captain warned you about