Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Microcell circular on Roger's offer

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 3:27:33 AM

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

> http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod/data49/filings/00694273/0...

(sorry if this wraps, go to www.sedar.com , and ask for documents since sept 1
from "Microcell" and choose the sept 30th or 29th one)

I did not see in that document any text as to why they should accept to cease
to exist instead of fighting on as a standalone Microcell. It is as if their
mandate was the find the best offer and once found, to go forth with it.

One intersting tidbit is that the board has agreed to coordinate Microcell's
big decisions with Rogers from now on. So if Microcell does push forward with
CityFido in ottawa/Montreal, it would essentially be with the consent of Microcell.

Microcell has also agreed not to try to find any new suitors, but will accept
unsollicited bids if they are of higher value.

The circular mentions nothing about any promises by Rogers on what it will do
with Microcell,s assets (keep Fido brand, merge networks etc). Perhaps one
reason is that the competition bureau may force Rogers to divest of certain
assets in order to get the purchase of microcell approved.

Oh, and it seems that there are 2 subsidiaries now: Microcell Solutions and
Inukshuk. And they seem to treat CityFido and Fido as two separate brands.
(which is interesting in the context of what continues to exist post merger -
Rogers only spoke of Fido).

So it seems it was Connexions which was melted into Solutions (and other
subdidiaries such as I5 just vanished).

Charles Sirois is still on the board and still owns a big chunk of shares (but
less than 5% of Microcell). He is also the only board member to have remained
undecided on whether he will tender his shares or not.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 6:43:58 PM

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

> I did not see in that document any text as to why they should accept to
> cease
> to exist instead of fighting on as a standalone Microcell. It is as if
> their
> mandate was the find the best offer and once found, to go forth with it.

Will make one comment here, if Microcell hadn't found a higher suitor it
would have eventually been purchased by Telus. Given that Telus's offer was
at $29 and prior to this Microcell's stock was at $19, it is only fair to
assume that the shareholders would have eventually taken the Telus offer had
another not arisen. Had the shareholders taken the Telus offer you would,
most likely, have a MUCH LOWER probability of 'anything Microcell' remaining
after the acquisition. Telus was trying to buy Microcell to 'kill it', plain
and simple.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 7:47:49 PM

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

malingerer@gmail.com wrote:
> Will make one comment here, if Microcell hadn't found a higher suitor it
> would have eventually been purchased by Telus. Given that Telus's offer was
> at $29 and prior to this Microcell's stock was at $19, it is only fair to
> assume that the shareholders would have eventually taken the Telus offer had
> another not arisen.

Depends on the shareholders. If a company has just restructured itself with a
much lower debt load and has plenty of potential in the long term, and you
have a small number of investors with vision, then the shareholders could have
decided not to tender their shares to any offer.

The problem is that Microcell's shareholders, notably the big bad canadian
banks which hAve no long term vision, announced from day 1 that their
intentions were to find a suitor and sell Microcell as soon as possible in
order to recover the cash they lost when the debt was converted into equity as
oppposed to seing Microcell as a viable long term investment.
Related resources
October 8, 2004 9:52:53 PM

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

Anyone remembers when Rogers wanted to buy Videotron?, It was almost a done
deal.......

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:4166090E.BA20FB75@teksavvy.com...
> >
http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod/data49/filings/00694273/0...
>
> (sorry if this wraps, go to www.sedar.com , and ask for documents since
sept 1
> from "Microcell" and choose the sept 30th or 29th one)
>
> I did not see in that document any text as to why they should accept to
cease
> to exist instead of fighting on as a standalone Microcell. It is as if
their
> mandate was the find the best offer and once found, to go forth with it.
>
> One intersting tidbit is that the board has agreed to coordinate
Microcell's
> big decisions with Rogers from now on. So if Microcell does push forward
with
> CityFido in ottawa/Montreal, it would essentially be with the consent of
Microcell.
>
> Microcell has also agreed not to try to find any new suitors, but will
accept
> unsollicited bids if they are of higher value.
>
> The circular mentions nothing about any promises by Rogers on what it will
do
> with Microcell,s assets (keep Fido brand, merge networks etc). Perhaps one
> reason is that the competition bureau may force Rogers to divest of
certain
> assets in order to get the purchase of microcell approved.
>
> Oh, and it seems that there are 2 subsidiaries now: Microcell Solutions
and
> Inukshuk. And they seem to treat CityFido and Fido as two separate brands.
> (which is interesting in the context of what continues to exist post
merger -
> Rogers only spoke of Fido).
>
> So it seems it was Connexions which was melted into Solutions (and other
> subdidiaries such as I5 just vanished).
>
> Charles Sirois is still on the board and still owns a big chunk of shares
(but
> less than 5% of Microcell). He is also the only board member to have
remained
> undecided on whether he will tender his shares or not.
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 4:43:36 AM

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

it was the caisse who stopped that and made someone else pony up.. really
don't think that's the issue with this scenario..
http://www.microcell.ca/EN/01/index.asp?id=01&sid=04&co...

"Mr. Rhéaume is a member of the board of directors of Capital d'Amérique
CDPQ Inc., a subsidiary of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, and
of Quebecor World Inc. He also sits on a number of other boards of public
and private companies."

"Spark" <tnt@aei.ca> wrote in message news:41670d14$1_2@aeinews....
> Anyone remembers when Rogers wanted to buy Videotron?, It was almost a
> done
> deal.......
>
> "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
> news:4166090E.BA20FB75@teksavvy.com...
>> >
> http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod/data49/filings/00694273/0...
>>
>> (sorry if this wraps, go to www.sedar.com , and ask for documents since
> sept 1
>> from "Microcell" and choose the sept 30th or 29th one)
>>
>> I did not see in that document any text as to why they should accept to
> cease
>> to exist instead of fighting on as a standalone Microcell. It is as if
> their
>> mandate was the find the best offer and once found, to go forth with it.
>>
>> One intersting tidbit is that the board has agreed to coordinate
> Microcell's
>> big decisions with Rogers from now on. So if Microcell does push forward
> with
>> CityFido in ottawa/Montreal, it would essentially be with the consent of
> Microcell.
>>
>> Microcell has also agreed not to try to find any new suitors, but will
> accept
>> unsollicited bids if they are of higher value.
>>
>> The circular mentions nothing about any promises by Rogers on what it
>> will
> do
>> with Microcell,s assets (keep Fido brand, merge networks etc). Perhaps
>> one
>> reason is that the competition bureau may force Rogers to divest of
> certain
>> assets in order to get the purchase of microcell approved.
>>
>> Oh, and it seems that there are 2 subsidiaries now: Microcell Solutions
> and
>> Inukshuk. And they seem to treat CityFido and Fido as two separate
>> brands.
>> (which is interesting in the context of what continues to exist post
> merger -
>> Rogers only spoke of Fido).
>>
>> So it seems it was Connexions which was melted into Solutions (and other
>> subdidiaries such as I5 just vanished).
>>
>> Charles Sirois is still on the board and still owns a big chunk of shares
> (but
>> less than 5% of Microcell). He is also the only board member to have
> remained
>> undecided on whether he will tender his shares or not.
>
>
October 9, 2004 4:43:37 AM

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

But the fat lady hasn't sung yet.....
<malingerer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:YuG9d.33409$a41.6495@pd7tw2no...
> it was the caisse who stopped that and made someone else pony up.. really
> don't think that's the issue with this scenario..
>
http://www.microcell.ca/EN/01/index.asp?id=01&sid=04&co...
>
> "Mr. Rhéaume is a member of the board of directors of Capital d'Amérique
> CDPQ Inc., a subsidiary of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, and
> of Quebecor World Inc. He also sits on a number of other boards of public
> and private companies."
>
> "Spark" <tnt@aei.ca> wrote in message news:41670d14$1_2@aeinews....
> > Anyone remembers when Rogers wanted to buy Videotron?, It was almost a
> > done
> > deal.......
> >
> > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
> > news:4166090E.BA20FB75@teksavvy.com...
> >> >
> >
http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod/data49/filings/00694273/0...
> >>
> >> (sorry if this wraps, go to www.sedar.com , and ask for documents since
> > sept 1
> >> from "Microcell" and choose the sept 30th or 29th one)
> >>
> >> I did not see in that document any text as to why they should accept to
> > cease
> >> to exist instead of fighting on as a standalone Microcell. It is as if
> > their
> >> mandate was the find the best offer and once found, to go forth with
it.
> >>
> >> One intersting tidbit is that the board has agreed to coordinate
> > Microcell's
> >> big decisions with Rogers from now on. So if Microcell does push
forward
> > with
> >> CityFido in ottawa/Montreal, it would essentially be with the consent
of
> > Microcell.
> >>
> >> Microcell has also agreed not to try to find any new suitors, but will
> > accept
> >> unsollicited bids if they are of higher value.
> >>
> >> The circular mentions nothing about any promises by Rogers on what it
> >> will
> > do
> >> with Microcell,s assets (keep Fido brand, merge networks etc). Perhaps
> >> one
> >> reason is that the competition bureau may force Rogers to divest of
> > certain
> >> assets in order to get the purchase of microcell approved.
> >>
> >> Oh, and it seems that there are 2 subsidiaries now: Microcell Solutions
> > and
> >> Inukshuk. And they seem to treat CityFido and Fido as two separate
> >> brands.
> >> (which is interesting in the context of what continues to exist post
> > merger -
> >> Rogers only spoke of Fido).
> >>
> >> So it seems it was Connexions which was melted into Solutions (and
other
> >> subdidiaries such as I5 just vanished).
> >>
> >> Charles Sirois is still on the board and still owns a big chunk of
shares
> > (but
> >> less than 5% of Microcell). He is also the only board member to have
> > remained
> >> undecided on whether he will tender his shares or not.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 3:55:15 AM

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

JF Mezei said:

> The problem is that Microcell's shareholders, notably the big bad canadian
> banks which hAve no long term vision, announced from day 1 that their
> intentions were to find a suitor and sell Microcell as soon as possible in
> order to recover the cash they lost when the debt was converted into equity as
> oppposed to seing Microcell as a viable long term investment.
----------------


I think you would be right... had those banks accepted the Telus offer.
Telus extended it several times. If those banks were in such a hurry to
sell the shares, they would have done it before Rogers could even step
to the plate.


Munger

--
Read about my travels: http://travels.munger.ca/
!