Why did Lowe's not seek sound legal advice on how to takeover a "Republic of Quebec" company? Why did Lowes not obtain a hard lock-up agreement with institutional shareholders similar to what Resolute/Abitibi did with Fairfax. Why are they not buying more shares in the market as did Stealhead Partners. Did Lowes even seek legal council on how to influence/ deal with the Bureau.
I am not sure why everyone is getting all bent out of shape over the Lowes / Rona takeover. There is an easy solution if they simply do a little homework and follow the same game plan Resolute Forest used to acquire Fibrek. They partnered up with Fairfax and friends by entereing into a hard lock up agreement. They then bought shares in the market to gain 50% control. They then forced out minority sharehlders using current securities laws and despite several attempts to thwart the low ball takeover and abuse of the minority, they successfully took over Fibrek.
Fibrek's white knight which offerrred to pay 30% more for the shares was thwarted on several attempts by the Bureau and I see no reason why Rona should not have followed the same game plan. They could have hired the same lawyers Resolute/Abitbitibi used and then sat back and watched the Bureau contradict itself. This should prove once and for all that the system is fixed and the application of the securities rules are only a guideline.
Je me Souviens - do investors not realize that buying Quebec based companies is generally a losing proposition. The Republic acts in its own best interest and disregards shareholders rights unless its suits their purpose. It is hard enough to find good companies but why would you increase your odds of failure by investing in a Republic of Quebec based company? WHY? Can you honestly name one successful Quebec based company that can survive and prosper without the Republics backing ie. Caisse de depot
Who is acting for Lowe's on this deal? Better start reading up on how to effectively buyout Quebec based companies.
https://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/03/fibrek-and-market-integrity/
https://business.financialpost.com/2012/06/15/osler-releases-its-take-on-fibrek-deal/
Oslers also noted the Bureau’s decision highlights a continuing feature of the Canadian landscape, “where the presence of multiple provincial securities regulators leaves it open for each securities tribunal to determine how readily to exercise its public interest jurisdiction, yielding potentially different results from one province to another.”