Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 4:10 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 5 hrs 20 mins


% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Clearwire Corporation (CLWRD) Message Board

  • fineinvestor fineinvestor Jun 3, 2013 6:29 PM Flag

    Very Hard To Argue Against This Logic

    But if you legitimately believe your prior offers to have reflected Clearwire’s true value, it is time for Sprint to reconsider its stated and dogged refusal to be a seller of Clearwire. DISH has proposed a tender offer for more than you are willing to pay for Clearwire yourself. If the tender offer exceeds your good faith valuation of
    Clearwire’s assets, then you have a fiduciary duty to your own stockholders to sell Sprint’s
    Clearwire shares to DISH. If instead you understand that Clearwire’s value is still much higher
    than DISH’s bid—as we believe you do—then you have an obligation as Clearwire’s controlling
    stockholder to present an offer reflecting that higher value. You cannot have it both ways.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Why does Sprint have a fiduciary responsibility to sell shares they their stake in Clearwire.. that is complete nonsense. Their duty is to further the aims of Sprint as owner of a majority position. In doing so, they redeem whatever greater value there lying latent in the spectrum or operations and network assets. If it plays out that the net present value as determined by the Delaware court is higher because of the DISH offer and by Sprint pursuing their interests, then you will have a right to claim that by pursuit of your legal rights.

      Sprint has no obligation to accept an offer from DISH. If DISH wants to pay you $4.40 they can start buying up your shares on the open market... no strings attached.

    • I saw that in Crest's letter. Very powerful statement that lays totally bare Sprint's desire to indeed HAVE it both ways and steal clearwire for much less than it's true value.

      People sometimes ask me how I know when to sell a stock. My reply is a discipline of myself that takes the form of a question:

      If I wouldn't buy it again today, absent an existing position, then why wouldn't I sell it.

      In all honesty, however... sprint SHOULD be allowed to have it both ways to some degree. The reason is their operational, co-dependence on clearwire. They have a vested interest in retaining their ownership of clearwire by virtue of that co-dependence of their networks and wholesale arrangements.

      Conversely, the value of ownership due to co-dependence should NOT translate to offering as much as that existing position is worth, because clearwire isn't that "viable" of a stand-alone entity...

      ... the problem is... it's less than viable status is primarily due to years of abuse from sprint itself.


    • Crest letter was well written and bang on. So much Sprint hand waving going on to distract shareholders from two words: Fiduciary Duty. This really is not that complicated IMHO.

      Sentiment: Hold

    • smethport1982 Jun 3, 2013 6:55 PM Flag

      AMEN, if Sprint does succeed in violating the law aka Bernie Madoff Style you can bet there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in lawsuits against sprint, son, and all the other Crooks involved.


Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.