Glentel Inc GLNIF

RE:HALTED

[ascii2]

“Rogers has the right to remove their products from our Canadian stores if they choose or to terminate its agreement with us, but has no right under its agreement to block the acquisition of GLENTEL. Approval of the acquisition is up to Glentel’s shareholders, not one of our many suppliers, and we look forward to closing the acquisition in early 2015 If Rogers does not approve of this transaction, it can end its agreement with Glentel”.- Skidmore
The Rogers application alleges that according to the terms of an agreement with the retailer signed July 1, Glentel requires Rogers’ consent to a change of control.
Approval of the acquisition is up to Glentel’s shareholders, not one of its many suppliers as per news release.
IMHO, It is not a first right of refusal situation. It is like a term in the agreement only and remedy might say; Roger can terminate the contract at any time if it is not satisfied anytime in future. Roger’s does not own Glentel per say, it has only a distribution agreement with Glentel. They have a right to either continue with the distribution agreement as is or terminate the agreement when change of control occurs, if Roger’s is not happy they can decide to pull out. It is not a happy situation Rogers is in today. 
It is like a tenant including clause “Tenant is allowed to stay in the house as long as he wishes and tenant consent is required when change of control  occurs. If tenant does not approve it then he/she can opt to move out or continue to accept new reality and situation. Tenant does not own the house till perpetuity .  Yes tenant has a right to say I don’t like the new owner but then what? This not a signed lease that owner has to pay the tenant for the remaining term. Also existing owner has other houses that new owner is buying as a packaged deal; therefore I don’t think tenant has much say in this matter. What more he is allowed to continue with his agreement as per ownership transfer agreement. If tenant has money or strength than he can place a higher bid but again owner or shareholders in this case has a right to accept the new bid or reject it. It is a routine situation that existing tenant or anybody for that matter does not like a sudden change in the situation and feel helpless particularly if you have a history with the new owner. Having said that new owner can change or modify rent depending on the situation or terminate the agreement in future depending on the situation.  BCE has promised to keep the agreement intact. Courts normally ask tenant to find another suitable accommodation but never stop the sale, they may give tenant some more time to stay in the house.  BCE is paying 121% premium that is difficult to match Roger’s enjoyed 25 years of distribution from this agreement and BCE is still willing to carry their product even after the acquisition.
It is like frustrated tenant situation that is feeling helpless I guess and trying last attempt to stop it knowing that change is inevitable.  Tenant is trying to stop complete sale knowing that Canadian operation constitutes only 30% of the mix. So let it take its time.  I am not in a hurry to sell.