I have to disagree with you somewhat Rod. I think the combination of three factors is driving the high level of scrutiny.
i) As you suggest, the 'door slam' episode. Inprise might plausibly be deemed sophisticated investors (bear with me here..), but the general public will be less able to bear the information costs of their own due diligence. The rather aggressive character of the terms Canaccord obtained makes this important.
ii) Cowpland as crook, regardless of the merit of the charges, places this first factor in greater relief, and raises concerns of its own.
iii)The OSC has not covered itself in glory on this sort of issue. Not too long ago, the Globe and Mail did a rather scathing feature on the faults of the regulatory body, particularly the way firms like Canaccord have been able to trade ahead of their own clients. Flawed though the OSC may be, they are making an effort to improve. All of that goes out the window if they allow a deal like this, brought by someone facing charges, to slide by - if it blows up in their face, the reputational damage will be huge.
I would therefore predict that a typo will be enough to send this back, until the OSC has covered itself as strongly as possible.
From what I hear, Corel has been saving severance costs every day.... |
