>Sure the companies have a shared history, but some date don't they begin to live separate lives?
Yes, but Lucent is still primary supplier to T, and they have lots of pull. Relationships don't disappear so quickly just because the corporate binds are gone.
>I've been buying AT&T shares lately and I'd be interested to know if you think they will be sued by Ciena?
They can try, but it will be perceived (correctly, IMHO) as sour grapes.
>One of the things I read in this article is that Ciena didn't really treat Tellabs correctly. It looks like this article makes a strong argument that Ciena was as much to blame for not bringing this information to Tellabs as any circumstance that could've been orchestrated by AT&T/Lucent.
Not true. Nettles had full disclosure with Birch. Nettles did drop the ball by allowing a material adverse event (actually, several) to occur on his watch, but there was nothing shady in his conduct. Birch, however, is busily trying to cover his ass, for a) agreeing to overpay (Mike Armstrong, are you listening?), b) putting his credibility on the line for a second deal, c) flip-flopping when things turned rough, and d) letting a strategic asset slip through the cracks.
Speaking of overpaying, Worldcom upped its bid for CAI and Sprint just snapped up ATEL. Shoot, should have tried harder to pick up those bonds. Only WIRL is left. Wonder what their bonds are quoting... |
