RE: RE: RE: Morerallard, not sure if this is your post you referred to. Posted in October, not May, which makes sense since the decisions were made in August.
Again, the only reference to a valuation was in this paragraph:
The OSC held that the absence of a minimum tender condition (despite an earlier public representation to the contrary) did not, on its own, warrant Commission intervention. Similarly, the Commission found that there was nothing inherently improper about Sears Holdings deciding to make a bid at a price that was less than the valuation range of the independent valuator engaged by the Special Committee of Sears Canada. Further, communicating with the independent valuator prior to the completion of their valuation and openly criticizing the valuator prior to the completion of the valuation was not considered objectionable conduct on the part of Sears Holdings.
Is this the post you referred to, or is there another?
Also, if you go here, you will find this:
On January 10, Sears Holdings applied to the OSC for exemptive relief from the requirement to include a formal valuation in its Bid circular on the basis that the valuation was not being prepared in a timely manner.
There was no dispute as to whether Sears Holdings was deemed an "insider" for the purpose of a takeover bid, so I am not sure how it pertains to the situation with KWG/CLF?
While it will be interesting to hear what Frank has to say on the matter, I wouldn't put too much weight behind it. He is likely to argue that Cliff's is an insider, just as likely as Cliff's will argue they are not (for the purposes of a takeover bid). Cliff's has lawyers too, some very familiar with Canadian law I'm sure. What is needed is an objective opinion on the matter, from neither company, which is where this will probably end up someday.
GL
TW