Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the for-better-or-for-worse dept.

Charter Communications Inc. plans to buy Time Warner Cable Inc., clinching a deal made necessary by slowing growth in the U.S. cable industry -- and more expensive by last-minute competition from French billionaire Patrick Drahi.

Charter will pay $195.71 a share -- 14 percent above Time Warner Cable's May 22 close -- with options of $100 and $115 in cash and the remainder in its own stock, according to a statement Tuesday. Bright House Networks, a smaller cable company that Charter has previously agreed to buy, will also be merged into the combined entity.

It took Charter and its main shareholder John Malone more than a year to reach a deal with No. 2 Time Warner Cable after their January 2014 bid of $132.50-a-share was rejected as a "low-ball offer" and Comcast Corp. jumped in with a competing offer. Although Charter got another shot when regulatory scrutiny caused the Comcast deal to fall apart in April, talks were disrupted by Drahi's Altice SA, which also approached Time Warner Cable in the past weeks.

"The idea that Time Warner Cable and Charter are merging isn't a surprise, but the price raises some eyebrows," Craig Moffett, an analyst at MoffettNathanson in New York, said May 24 after Bloomberg News reported a deal was near. "Altice undoubtedly contributed to Charter having to pay such a steep price to close the deal."


[Editor's Comment: Original Submission - before the purchase was confirmed]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Placenta on Wednesday May 27 2015, @12:53AM

    by Placenta (5264) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @12:53AM (#188373)

    Why shouldn't they?

    If they've arranged a deal that brings value to the companies involved, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be compensated by those companies for their efforts.

    Likewise, if they've been negatively affected by such a deal, such as their positions becoming redundant and eliminated within the combined organization, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be compensated for their losses.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:21PM (#188577)

    a deal that brings value to the companies involved

    Please, elaborate on what this 'value' is.