TVA GROUP Most LEVEL II QUOTES for Dec. 7, 2022 have 1 order on both side (buy/sell)
SCOTIA CAPITAL, the lead buyer with so far 100K shares in last few days.
RBC is the lead seller, followed by NATIONAL BANK.
RBC or NATIONAL BANK will likely dump their 23300 shares , if at market, it will sink the share price further to $1.50 (as there are 25900 shares waiting to be bought at prices of $1.63, $1.62, $1.60, $1.53, $1.52, $1.51 and $1.50, unless perhaps again SCOTIA CAPITAL swallows the 23300 shares at $1.65.
At worst, it appears that the bleeding could STOP at $1.25 with a buyer for 20000 shares.
NO ONE, I am sure, would have predicted such a downfall from the May 2022 52-weeks HIGH of $4. In 2021, TVA.B share price closed at $2.60.
It is quite a bashing, but trading at a current low remains the only way that at least 1 shareholder will come to question what is going on with this company and take redress actions with management.
2023 will cost TVA millions of dollars namely from the CALEX class-action and perhaps another blow from BELL
SHARES BUY SELL SHARES
1000........1.63............1.65......23300
1000........1.62............1.69..........800
6000........1.60............1.70......18200
5000........1.53............1.75........4000
1000........1.52............1.78........8000
5900........1.51............1.79........2000
6000........1.50............1.80........4000
2500........1.42............1.82........5000
100..........1.34............1.84........1300
20000......1.25............1.94..........100
Qubecor loses appeal bid in 2019 TVA Sports dispute with Bell
The CRTC intervened after Groupe TVA blacked out its signal to Bell subscribers on the first night of the playoffs.
Author of the article:
La Presse Canadienne
Pierre Saint-Arnaud
Jul 29, 2021
Provincial media giant Qubecor has failed in its bid to appeal a decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ordering it to make its TVA Sports channel available to Bell TV subscribers during the 2019 NHL playoffs. In a ruling signed by Judge Richard Boivin, the three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Groupe TVA Inc. and Qubecor Media Inc.’s attempt to reverse the CRTC ruling.
TVA had already filed a complaint with the CRTC in February 2019, accusing Bell of favouring RDS. Groupe TVA also filed a lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court seeking damages for the same reason.
On April 10, 2019, the first night of the playoffs, Groupe TVA blacked out its signal to Bell subscribers. The unprecedented move was taken as TVA and Bell were in the process of negotiating their affiliation agreement. Groupe TVA had complained Bell was providing preferential treatment to Rseau des sports (RDS), its own sports network, and paying insufficient royalties.
TVA had already filed a complaint with the CRTC in February 2019, accusing Bell of favouring RDS. Groupe TVA also filed a lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court seeking damages for the same reason.
An attempt by the CRTC to mediate the dispute led nowhere. The day TVA cut its signal, Bell had asked the federal regulator to arbitrate on the rates for that signal.
Bell filed a request for a court injunction the day after the blackout, and one day later the Superior Court ordered TVA to restore its signal, a decision immediately obeyed by TVA.
Two days before TVA cut its signal, the CRTC — citing its own regulations — said the “status quo” should prevail during the dispute with Bell until a resolution had been reached. TVA ignored the decision.
On April 18, the CRTC found TVA had violated regulations by cutting its signal and ordered it to maintain service to Bell customers until an agreement had been reached, failing which, it would see its broadcast licence automatically suspended.
Groupe TVA and Qubecor Mdia appealed that ruling, arguing the CRTC had overstepped its authority when it issued a ruling that could have an economic impact on a programming provider and a distribution provider. The companies argued the CRTC’s authority rested in the cultural and not economic sector, and thus had no business involving itself in a contractual dispute.
However, the Federal Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling the CRTC did indeed have broad powers and the jurisdiction to involve itself in such disputes.
Boivin wrote those powers had been deliberately provided to the CRTC in order to “preserve the balance of power during the negotiation process and ensure that Canadian consumers were not deprived of services during such disputes.”