Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quidditch who wrote (7966)	3/23/2000 12:54:00 AM
From: barry fowler	Respond to of 24042

Good points Steve. >> ALA's motives are not necessarily pure as the driven snow! Agree. If they were, I'd think they might be inclined to support, or at least not object, to the merger on the grounds that ALA needs fiber optic components as well as other companies. JDSU claims a good way to do that is to acquire ETEK. However, your point re: ALA's desire for market share would be a motive for them to complain -- it must out-weigh their desire for FO components. Also, JDSU has two separate / independent teams of attorneys look at the merger beforehand. Both teams returned favorable responses, indicating there wasn't grounds for the DOJ to deny the merger. If ALA's only whining, let's hope the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease in this situation.

To: quidditch who wrote (7966)	3/23/2000 1:28:00 AM
From: John Waddell, Ph.D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

Steve, actually, I think your points are well-taken. When I said "but it doesn't seem that difficult to me to simply guarantee Alcatel and others that there will be no price increase for 18 months," I didn't meant that they should do this in a public forum. Basically, what I wanted to convey was that this should not be something that prevents the merger, that JDSU and ETEK could find a way to make a deal to eliminate this bump in the road. The public statement I want ETEK/JDSU to make is simply a reassurance to us stock-holders that they are still serious about making the merger happen. The stories coming out suggest the deal is in more danger than I think it is, and it would be nice for the management to provide a balancing message (e.g. We will address Alcatel's concerns insofar as they are warranted). This is more of a personal desire than a formal statement about what management "owes" the market.

To: quidditch who wrote (7966)	3/23/2000 5:03:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

The DOJ guidelines on mergers are quite clear. If an industry (thin film filters) is too concentrated (As it appears to be) then DOJ will refuse to approve the merger. If the overly concentrated industry cannot be made more competitive by voluntary divestiture, the government can reverse the merger by suing. Even if the DOJ does not object, Alcatel (or anyone else) can sue privately to reverse the merger. It is unusual for the courts to break up a firm as a result of a private suit, but not illegal. The purpose of the anti-merger law is to stop any merger that substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly (in any industry in any part of the country) according to the court in its incipiency. Thus it is not necessary to prove lessened competition or monopoly but only the probability of such effect.

To: quidditch who wrote (7966)	3/23/2000 7:38:00 PM
From: SL2	Respond to of 24042

Steven, <<I couldn't disagree more, for a variety of reasons...>> Nice post. Very well stated. These kinds of mergers are very complicated and this is hard ball. Was involved in many competitive bids,in Asia, where Alcatel was involved. They play hard ball. Competed in a way that most American companies could never get away with. When dealing with the government, never ever give up more than you have to up front. JDSU may have to give up a pound of flesh to get three...but rolling over is naive, and certainly not in the "OWNERS" long-term interests. Happy investing, SL2