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.
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.
aside from all the other fantastic illogic and spam-like nature of your posts, there is such a thing as damages...there can't be hundreds of billions in lawsuits since any damages are no where near that....also, might want to start to recognize that the Delaware Court of Chancery is well know not to tolerate shenanigans that run afoul of business law, that's why corporation incorporate there. This whole bid by Ergan is frankly.....nonsense. May I suggest that Ergan already knows THAT. Might want to start to figure his real agenda here.