Again, the verbiage in that passage takes great care to avoid any mention of Global Crossing's name. It must be inferred or otherwise deduced. Instead, that paragraph addresses, among other things, what the JV, ION, "contemplates" doing, but offers very little (actually, nothing substantive) in the way of what it "is" doing.
From the SEC filing dated 3/17/2000 which you excerpted in your message:
"We have entered into a 50/50 joint venture, ION, with a subsidiary of Racal that contemplates jointly acquiring and selling international, facilities-based telecommunications capacity between the U.S. and the United Kingdom and possibly between the U.S. and other markets..."
A relationship which has existed since 1998, and now they are contemplating? I'll leave it there, since it's apparent to me that we're dealing with an item that may have been shelved, or waiting for the right moment to _become_ something which is tangible and real.
[[As an aside, I think that the potential exists here for a natural conflict, if you take into account some of GBLXs other strategic planning. In particular, with respect to GBLX's strategy of providing building-to-building, premises-to-premises services for its clients. One could see how, when using Telergy throughout most of the NFL cities in the USA, where MFNX also maintains a (future, and formidable) overlapping presence, where some relations could become strained when GBLX elects to use Telergy instead of MFNX for the North American "off-ends" of those services which terminate in the UK (where Racal's reach dominates the region, ostensibly).]]
Thanks for the leg work. If there are no further corrections or objections, I propose that we close this case. Just sound the gavel, Doctor.
FAC |
