Lith
Stay tuned and I will scan and post the language for you here. It was washed over because of its worth to mergers & A. It's important enough to come back to the table for I believe due to impending merger activity.
I think more important than pasting the language is the arbitrator's opinion. US AIRWAYS won the arbitration because it demonstrated that its many investors was not acting in concert. There were about a dozen or more investors. Arbitrator Bloch wrote in his judgement,
"...In seeking to raise capital, the Company shook a lot of different trees,
beginning in February of 2005.5 Prospective investors responded with a variety
of demands. Eastshore, an Air Wisconsin affiliate, committed to $125 million as
a debtor in possession. But the stipulation was that US Airways would use Air
Wisconsin as a US Airways express brand.6 An appeal to Republic Airways,
which involved the sale of slots at LaGuardia and DCA by US Airways to
Republic, was ultimately unproductive.7 Similarly, ACE Aviation invested $75
million, a commitment that included an agreement to perform maintenance work
for US Airways.8 Two private equity funds, Par and Peninsula, committed,
respectively, $100 million (a 10 percent ownership stake) and $50 million, (a five
percent ownership stake).9 A public-company investor fund manager,
Wellington, paid $150 million for a 13 percent ownership stake: It paid $16.50
per share, a premium price compared to prior investors. 10 The Tudor company
paid $65 million for a six percent share, which represented a still-higher price
than was paid by Wellington.
There is no evidence in the record that the disposition of stock to the
varied recipients was anything other than a series of unrelated bargains between
the Company and the individual investment entities. This is relevant to both the
nature of the purchase and the purchasers. If one may describe the buyers as a
group, they were surely not acting in concert: There is no evidence whatsoever
these investors somehow planned with one another to acquire an interest in US
Airways."
In a merger, the CIC has the teeth of a Tiger. Any M & A activity would most assuredly be by a single purchaser or a plurality acting in concert.
This is what Hemenway wants and this is precisely the reason why Fleet service should hold its position for a fair contract. Plus regardless, this Wal Mart contract still shouldn't be voted in. it sucks real bad and is millions less than the one rejected in September.
Tentative Agreement Informational Webpage Updates
regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago
email: appearances1@aol.com