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 : XO Holdings, Inc. (XOHO - XO Communications) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech101 who wrote (586)	1/30/2011 9:23:09 PM
From: tech101	1 Recommendation Respond to of 615

Comment on Icahn's Response to the NYPost Article By en_ron_hubbard investorvillage.com <<XO Communications: The Post has repeated certain negative statements made by Geoffrey Raynor, a shareholder of XO, a company which I control. He purchased XO approximately seven years ago at $5 per share and obviously has a large loss. In fact, since the time of his purchase, I have had to invest substantial additional funds into XO in order to keep its business alive, during a period in which small telecommunication companies have fared very badly. As a result, I now have just under $l billion of preferred stock. Raynor, like other large holders, was offered opportunities to invest with me. He declined to do so, choosing instead to bring lawsuits against me rather than face up to the fact that he has made a very poor investment. In recent years, Raynor has also brought numerous lawsuits against others in connection with other investments he has made. Raynor also argues that I could have sold the company. This is entirely false. We hired investment bankers and tried for two years to sell and never got a firm cash offer. >> This is Clintonesque (depends on what the definition of "is" is). The facts uncovered in discovery are that a bona fide offer existed which was in fact recommended be pursued by the bankers advising the board. The unnamed offerror was willing to go to contract in a very short time frame after a short period for confirmatory due diligence at a price substantially in excess of the trading price at that time. Icahn obfuscates the issue (one might term this a lie) by using the word "firm" when he well knows that no offer is "firm" until due diligence is complete and a contract agreed to. He was not willing to let this happen. BTW, this is why his tune has now changed and he has said he is not a seller under any circumstances-- he is rightly concerned that an open process will result in a price he is unwilling to match. It is that price that the minority shareholders are entitled to-- a fair and market tested price. To be fair, I am somewhat familiar with the facts around Blockbuster and Dynergy and he makes reasonable points. Lionsgate I can't speak to. In XO his entire MO has been one of blatent self-interest, hypocrisy , bullying and now playing with words to defend the indefensible. This is not a good person (but we knew that).