RE:RE:RE:RE:Chiara fustige Air TransatGuys, where do you think the penalty would come from??
From the offer of March being lowered to 13.6$, or from the companie's cash on hand??
It's ridiculous to think that their 14$ offer would be lowered because March wouldn't want to assume the break up fee.
Anyways, if TRZ wanted to negociate that sort of thing with March, they could have...
Obviously, the board is not exactly being faithful to it's fiduciary duty... Deal with March did not require financing and would have passed the approval from the competition bureau 100 times easier that it ever would with AC...
It's hard to justify TRZ's decision other than to view it as an attempt to keep their job as AC wants TRZ's operation to remain seperate.
The regulators really reallllllllllllllllllly need to adopt better laws to force administrators to act in the best interest of shareholders. The investment space is Canada is a joke... Just look at all the sketchy things going on at lower levels like in the junior mining space.
To have this flagrant lack of shareholder's interest up in the open is just a reminder of the flaws out there... But hey, what do our officials care about?? Jobs... Jobs... Jobs... Wouldn't want people to lose their jobs and not be able to service their over levered mortgages insured by the CMHC.So nothing will change...
Bobbyme wrote: Not officially........remember eustache said during the 30 days....that they did not
reveived official proposal.....
transat and air can did agree to the penality at the beginning of the 30 days.......
so yes there was 0,40 cents penalty