TheChek News Flow

Patrick Drahi renewed the assault of Bouygues Telecom. According to several sources, the owner of SFR presented there ten days a takeover offer from a subsidiary of the Bouygues group. A new offensive, which this time could be right. Because the new tycoon puts on the table a little more than 10 billion euros. A very high amount, 25% more than the 8 billion estimated by the markets. Patrick Drahi proposes to pay in cash, with a new loan from BNP Paribas. It would take over all of Bouygues Telecom and its 11 million mobile customers.

To avoid obstacles on competition, Patrick Drahi found, after difficult negotiations, an agreement with his rival Xavier Niel, who will take over part of frequencies, antennas and Bouygues shops. In 2014, Free had already offered to buy the network for € 1.8 billion. SFR must also respect until 2017 an obligation to maintain employment, which would be impossible to keep up with Bouygues as duplicates are important. Thus Orange, whose CEO, Stéphane Richard, grows continually consolidation of the French market, entered the game. The incumbent would take several hundred employees of Bouygues Telecom to ensure social guarantees, advance a blank check from the government. The 30,000 retirements will manage Orange 2020 will allow it to absorb the new workforce. In return, he could ask to recover subscribers such as, for example, Virgin Mobile. Betting unlikely to raise the stakes to an unimaginable level. More than 7.5 billion Patrick Drahi had proposed earlier this year. Nearly double the $ 6 billion that Free had offered last year. Revenge, while relatives and bankers have, each time, pushed to sell. A lesson given to the establishment of business that mocks the last two years, explaining "not understand the psychology of Martin Bouygues'.

Un conseil d’administration de Bouygues a été convoqué pour mardi afin d’étudier l’offre de SFR. Tenace, Martin Bouygues continue de repousser ces avances pour faire monter les enchères. « L’offre de Drahi n’est pas convenable et pas bouclée, notamment son financement » , lâche un de ses lieutenants. Le PDG de Bouygues se souvient de IL CACHE bien son jeu. À force de répéter qu’il a « l’esprit paysan » , à l’inverse de ses concurrents obsédés par leur cours de Bourse, qu’il n’est ni énarque, comme le PDG d’Orange, ni polytechnicien, comme celui de SFR, on finit par croire que le fils de Francis Bouygues est dépassé. Presque ringardisé par le financier Patrick Drahi ( SFR), le bluffeur Xavier Niel ( Free) ou l’habile Stéphane Richard ( Orange). En février, lors de la publication des comptes 2014 de son groupe, il avait martelé qu’il ne vendrait pas Bouygues Telecom. « Vous vendriez votre femme ? » , avait- il lâché au JDD.

Évidemment, il s’agissait d’envoyer le signal à ses adversaires qu’il ne se laisserait pas manger tout cru. Celui qui chasse tous les week- ends en Sologne a su jouer la montre pour faire grimper aux arbres l’impatient Patrick Drahi. Bien que fragilisé, il a su résister pour renverser le rapport de force et se rendre incontournable. S’il vend sa filiale de téléphonie près de 11 milliards d’euros, Martin Bouygues touchera un jackpot inespéré alors que les marchés la valorisent entre 3 et 5 milliards… Onze milliards, c’est presque la la bataille pour SFR, l’an passé. Sa persévérance avait obligé le flamboyant Drahi à ajouter 2 milliards de cash lors de la dernière nuit de négociations. Cette fois, Martin Bouygues fait passer le message qu’il serait prêt à vendre sa filiale, qu’il a créée il y a vingt ans, pour 11 milliards. Selon une source proche des négociations, SFR pourrait améliorer son offre d’ici au conseil de mardi pour remporter la mise. Martin Bouygues veut faire plier son rival. Il souhaite aussi que SFR valeur de tout le groupe Bouygues en Bourse. Un vrai coup de poker que les financiers apprécieront.

L’an passé, il avait déjà vendu Alstom, dont il détenait 30 %, pour 12 milliards. Il en récupérera 1,2 milliard sous forme de rachat d’actions. Au total, son trésor de guerre pourrait s’élever à 12 milliards d’euros en cash. Qu’en ferat- il ? Ses proches soulignent que Martin Bouygues rêve de clore sa carrière – il a 63 ans et dirige le groupe depuis vingt- six ans – en verrouillant le contrôle de sa famille sur l’empire du BTP. Un rêve inassouvi par Francis assume tous les risques de concurrence. « Des offres de Drahi, on en reçoit tous les quinze jours, s’agace un administrateur du groupe. Si la sienne est conditionnée au feu vert de l’Autorité de la concurrence, on ne la regardera même pas. »

S’il touche un chèque de près de 11 milliards, Martin Bouygues aura réalisé un véritable tour de force. Depuis deux ans, tous ses adversaires ont tenté de le faire céder à vil prix. Après plusieurs refus successifs, il réussirait le Bouygues. Aujourd’hui, lui et son frère n’en détiennent que 20 %.

En montant au- delà de 50 %, il léguerait à ses trois enfants un groupe sécurisé. Loin des petits 6 % dont il a hérité à la mort de son père en 1993 et qui lui valurent une offensive violente de Vincent Bolloré quatre ans plus tard. D’autres lui prêtent des vues sur des grands groupes français comme Veolia pour profiter de son exposition à l’international. Mais l’aventure Alstom l’a refroidi. À moins que le combatif Martin Bouygues ne reparte à la chasse. M. P. Vers une remontée des prix ?

De son côté, Patrick Drahi bouclerait sa quatrième grosse acquisition en un an après SFR, Portugal Telecom et Suddenlink aux ÉtatsUnis. En rachetant Bouygues, SFR deviendra le premier opérateur mobile avec la moitié du marché et le deuxième pour l’accès à Internet derrière Orange. Mais Drahi ajoutera 10 milliards de dettes sur son groupe, Altice, qui en accumule déjà 32 milliards… Les cours de Bourse de Bouygues, SFR, Orange et Free devraient s’envoler demain, tous les investisseurs spéculant sur une concentration du marché à trois opérateurs.

À terme, le mariage SFRBouygues Telecom sera complexe. Les analystes de BNP Paribas estiment que d’ici à 2020 le nouveau groupe pourrait perdre 8 % de parts de marché au profit… de Free, qui récupérerait naturellement des abonnés. Xavier Niel doublerait ainsi sa part de marché de 10 % à 20 % sans dépenser des fortunes. Reste à savoir si le retour à trois opérateurs provoquerait une remontée des prix. Peu de chances dans le mobile, qui reste un produit d’appel où le trublion Free a fait du low cost sa marque de fabrique. En revanche, ils pourraient augmenter pour les box Internet, dont les mouvements de clients sont faibles. SFR mise sur la fibre pour gonfler ses prix et ses marges, tout comme Orange. Celles de Free sont déjà de 40 %.

Patrick Drahi repart à l’assaut de Bouygues Telecom. Selon plusieurs sources, le propriétaire de SFR a présenté il y a dix jours une offre de rachat de la filiale du groupe Bouygues. Une nouvelle offensive, qui pourrait cette fois être la bonne. Car le nouveau tycoon met sur la table un peu plus de 10 milliards d’euros. Un montant très élevé, de 25 % plus cher que les 8 milliards estimés par les marchés. Patrick Drahi propose de payer en cash, grâce à un nouvel emprunt auprès de BNP Paribas. Il reprendrait la totalité de Bouygues Telecom et ses 11 millions de clients mobile.

Pour éviter des obstacles en matière de concurrence, Patrick Drahi a trouvé, après des négociations difficiles, un accord avec son rival Xavier Niel, qui reprendra une partie des fréquences, des antennes et des boutiques de Bouygues. En 2014, Free avait déjà proposé de racheter le réseau pour 1,8 milliard d’euros. SFR doit aussi respecter jusqu’en 2017 une obligation de maintien de l’emploi, qui serait impossible à tenir avec Bouygues tant les doublons sont importants. C’est ainsi qu’Orange, dont le PDG, Stéphane Richard, pousse sans cesse à une consolidation du marché français, est entré dans le jeu. L’opérateur historique reprendrait plusieurs centaines de salariés de Bouygues Telecom pour assurer les garanties sociales, préalable à un blanc- seing du gouvernement. Les 30.000 départs à la retraite qu’Orange va gérer d’ici à 2020 lui permettront d’absorber ces nouveaux effectifs. En contrepartie, il pourrait demander de récupérer des abonnés comme ceux, par exemple, de Virgin Mobile. pari improbable de faire monter les enchères à un niveau inimaginable. Bien plus que les 7,5 milliards que Patrick Drahi avait déjà proposés en début d’année. Près du double des 6 milliards que Free avait offerts l’an passé. Une revanche, alors que ses proches et ses banquiers l’ont, à chaque fois, poussé à vendre. Une leçon donnée à l’establishment des affaires qui le moque depuis deux ans, expliquant « ne plus comprendre la psychologie de Martin Bouygues » .

Afren, a UK-listed oil and gas company, has published a prospectus for its proposed restructuring. An excerpt from Afren’s stock exchange announcement of 19 June follows:

Launch of the Proposed Debt Restructuring and Refinancing

Afren plc ("Afren", the "Company" or the "Group"), (LSE: AFR) today announces the publication of a prospectus and circular to shareholders relating to its proposed Restructuring, including the Open Offer to shareholders, the receipt of an additional USD 148m in net cash proceeds and the proposed restructuring of the Company's outstanding Notes.

The Directors believe that the Restructuring is in the best interests of the Company and for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Commenting today, Egbert Imomoh, Chairman of Afren plc, said:

"Afren Shareholders have been through an incredibly difficult period in the life of the business, and the next steps, whilst complex, are essential if we want to successfully emerge from this period on a value growth trajectory. I am clear that the only viable course of action for the business is to progress through the proposed refinancing process; it offers the only secure route to relieve the unsustainable debt burden, and support Afren's recovery. "

Commenting today, Alan Linn, CEO of Afren plc, said:

"I believe Afren has significant potential within its core Nigerian portfolio which will enable us to successfully emerge from this period and provide growth to all shareholders. The recommended restructuring, combined with the open offer, is the only viable opportunity for our shareholders to realise any value from their investment in the company. I urge all Afren shareholders to recognise this fact and vote to retain their active interest in the company by voting in favour of the proposed debt restructuring and refinancing."

SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE RESTRUCTURING

In the opinion of the Directors, voting for the Resolution and authorising the implementation of the Restructuring will:

Provide Existing Shareholders the only opportunity to realise value and participate in the recovery of the Group

Provide Existing Shareholders an opportunity to participate in the Open Offer to increase their ownership position on favourable terms

Improve the capital structure of the Group to provide it the time to implement its business plan and grow the value of its assets

Prevent a formal insolvency filing

If Shareholders do not approve the Resolution at the General Meeting, Existing Shareholders have no prospect of any value. Upon a No vote:

The restructuring will still proceed without delay

The amount of debt will increase by approximately USD 266m immediately as compared to a Yes vote and the interest rates on the Group's new debt will cause outstanding debt to increase significantly. There is no value for shareholders unless and until all of this debt is repaid

Holders of the New Senior Notes will have security over all of the Group's operating subsidiaries

The Company will be required to have entered into an agreement by no later than 31 December 2016 to sell all of its assets. These assets can be sold to any party, including the Noteholders, and can be completed with or without shareholder approval.

The Directors consider that if Shareholders do not approve the Resolution at the General Meeting, the Shareholders would be unlikely to receive any proceeds from the sale of the Group or the required disposal of the Group's assets or other return of income or capital by the Company, and therefore the Shareholders would be unlikely to see any return of their current investment.

In the Board's opinion, the Restructuring, including the Open Offer is in the best interests of Afren and the Shareholders taken as a whole. Accordingly, the Afren Board unanimously and strongly recommends Shareholders to vote in favour of the Resolution to be proposed at the General Meeting, as all Directors have irrevocably undertaken to do in respect of their own beneficial holdings of Existing Shares, amounting to 6,640,839 Existing Shares and 0.6% of the total number of votes available to be cast at the General Meeting.

Terms of the Restructuring

The principal components of the Restructuring comprise:

the implementation of a scheme of arrangement in respect of the Existing Notes, including:

o the issue of approximately USD 369m of new high yield notes due 2017 to refinance and repay the Bridge Securities and to provide an additional USD 148m in net cash proceeds to the Group;

o the conversion of approximately USD 234m of the Existing Notes (representing 25% of the 2016 Notes, the 2019 Notes and the 2020 Notes) into new Ordinary Shares in the Company, representing 80% of the existing issued share capital; and

o the remainder of the Existing Notes to be cancelled and reissued in equal amounts of approximately USD 350m each of new notes due December 2019 and December 2020 respectively, with an annual interest rate of 9.1%;

the issue of additional new Ordinary Shares, equal to 50% of the issued share capital of the Company following the Debt for Equity Swap described above, to holders of the New Senior Notes;

the issue of up to £49.2m (approximately USD 75m) of new Ordinary Shares by way of an open offer to Shareholders at 1 pence per Open Offer Share;

the issue of new Ordinary Shares, equal to 10% of the fully diluted share capital of the Company following the completion of the Open Offer, to holders of the New Senior Notes in order of priority of their agreement to subscribe for the New Senior Notes;

the issue of new Ordinary Shares, equal to 5% of the fully diluted share capital of the Company following the completion of the Open Offer, to the holders of the Bridge Securities in partial repayment of the Bridge Securities;

the entry into an amended term facility with the Ebok Lenders, including to extend the period for repayment of the USD 300m Ebok Facility until June 2019; and

the entry into an amended loan agreement with the Okwok/OML 113 Lender, including to extend the period for repayment of the USD 50m Okwok/OML 113 Facility until June 2019.

These summary highlights should be read in conjunction with the further details of the Restructuring, which are set out below.

The Restructuring will be implemented by means of a scheme of arrangement of the Existing Notes under the Companies Act 2006. The terms of the Restructuring, but not its implementation, are also subject to the approval of Shareholders in general meeting.

Information on the proposed refinancing is available at www.afrenegmvote.com

link to publication : http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12396935.html

Anthem going public with Cigna bid after the two sides failed to reach agreement

Anthem Inc. boosted its takeover offer for Cigna Corp. and is going public with the bid after the two sides failed to reach agreement, the latest move in a frenzy of attempted mergers among health insurers.

Anthem has offered $184 a share for Cigna in cash and stock, or $54 billion including debt, according to a person familiar with the matter. Anthem is making the offer public in an effort to put pressure on Cigna through its shareholders.

Anthem’s pursuit of Cigna comes as Cigna itself is eyeing Humana Inc., which has put itself up for sale. UnitedHealth Group Inc., meanwhile, recently made a takeover approach to Aetna Inc., which is also pursuing Humana. The five big managed-care companies are jockeying for deals that will enable them to get more efficient and better respond to changes in the health care landscape in the U.S. brought on by the Affordable Care Act and other developments.

Analysts says it is likely regulators will only allow one or two such combinations.

Anthem made a number of bids for Cigna privately in June, according to a letter Anthem Chief Executive Joseph Swedish sent to Cigna’s board Saturday that was seen by The Wall Street Journal. Among other things, the letter details disagreement the two sides have over the role Cigna CEO David Cordani would play in a combined company. He wants to be CEO, if not immediately then after a period of time, which Anthem refuses to guarantee.

The Journal had reported earlier this week that Anthem was pursuing Cigna, and had bid about $175 a share, which was rejected, and that Mr. Cordani’s potential role was a sticking point.

Anthem’s bid consists of about 31% of its own shares and the rest in cash. About 76% of the combined company would be owned by Anthem shareholders, while Cigna investors would own the rest, according to the latest proposal.

Anthem, which said it has been in negotiations with Cigna since Aug. 2014, bemoaned what it called its rival’s refusal to “reasonably negotiate.” It said the governance demands Cigna is making are excessive, given the rich premium Anthem says it is offering. Cigna is seeking a nearly 50-50 split of directors on a combined company’s board, Anthem said. Cigna also pushed for an offer price split evenly between cash and stock, according to Anthem.

A Cigna official declined to comment.

Anthem said it submitted four bids in June, the most recent, of $184 a share, on Thursday.

Cigna shares closed Friday at $155.30, giving the company a market value of $40 billion.

When, as now appears likely, Greece financially separates from Europe it will at one level be no one’s fault.

The Greek leaders will rightly explain that having imposed more austerity on themselves than any industrialised country has suffered since the Depression, they could not have done more without light at the end of tunnel in the form of a clear commitment to debt relief. European leaders will rightly explain that they adjusted their positions repeatedly to accommodate the Greeks. They will stress that their citizens would not permit Greece to play by different rules to the rest of Europe. And the IMF will rightly explain that it would have blessed any plan agreed by Greece and Europe that added up.

The trouble is that all the parties are going to get much more of what they fear from a breakdown than they would even from what they regard as an unacceptable compromise. Historians understand how the first world war was allowed to start but are still, a century later, incredulous that it happened. Financial historians may look back at the events of next week and wonder how Europe’s financial unravelling was permitted.

Make no mistake about the consequence of a breakdown. With an end to European support and consequent bank closures and credit problems, austerity in Greece will get far worse than it is today and it will probably become a failed state to the great detriment of all its people and their leadership.

When Greece fails as a state, Europe will collect far less debt than it would with an orderly debt restructuring. And a massive northern out-migration of Greeks will strain national budgets throughout Europe — not to mention the challenges that will, come as Russia achieves a presence in Greece.

The IMF is looking at by far the largest non-payment by a borrower in its history. True, there are good reasons to think enough foam has been placed on the runway to prevent financial contagion. Yet, this was asserted with respect to LTCM, subprime and the fall of Lehman.

Diplomacy fails and catastrophes happen when nations are preoccupied with their own concerns and fail to consider the political needs of their counterparts and become convinced that their counterparts will not take yes for an answer.

Here is an informed outsider’s judgment as to what needs to happen if disaster is to be averted.

The Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras needs to do what is necessary to make reaching an agreement politically feasible for his fellow Europeans.

That means dropping ideological rhetoric about a new European approach. He must recognise that Greece’s problems are significantly of its own making and make clear that he is absolutely committed to doing what is necessary to keep Greece in the euro area. He needs to be clear that he will accept further VAT and pension reforms to achieve primary surplus targets this year and next, but that he expects a clear recognition that if Greece does its part, debt will be written off on a large scale.

German chancellor Angela Merkel and the European authorities must do what is necessary to make policy adjustments politically tenable in Greece.

That means acknowledging that the vast majority of the financial support given to Greece has gone to pay back banks rather than to support the Greek budget. They must agree on debt relief and recognise the degree of adjustment in Greek spending that has taken place: with nearly 30 per cent of government workers laid off. It also means announcing their intention to accelerate economic growth throughout Europe.

The IMF needs to recognise that this is now not about the numbers. It is about the high politics of Europe. Its job is to stand behind any deal that avoids breakdown.

The hour is late. But it’s often darkest before dawn. Let us all hope that Greece and Germany use this weekend to work back from the brink before Monday’s summit.

The ‘Gomorrah’ author has written an impassioned account of the damage done by global cocaine trade

In the summer of 2009, I was invited to take part in a public discussion on organised crime. The panel was part of the summer festival that the Italian news magazine Internazionale mounts every year in the exquisite city of Ferrara.

Not only was the city’s main theatre packed to the rafters but there were also queues to watch the proceedings in other venues around the city. As I walked on stage, the audience broke out in the most thunderous applause I have ever experienced. And the clapping and cheering went on and on.

Both modesty and the truth prevent me from claiming that I was the object of this adulation. For standing next to me was Roberto Saviano, the young Italian writer whose book, Gomorrah, detailing the misery of life with the Camorra, the notorious Neapolitan version of the Sicilian mafia, was at the time a bestseller around the world. At least I now know how it must feel to work as a backing vocalist for The Rolling Stones.

In his writing and his public appearances, Saviano gives an authentic and loud voice to the disgust felt by many millions of Italians at the exceptional influence that organised crime has wielded over Italian economic and political life, especially since the end of the second world war.

He is a worthy heir to the genuinely heroic magistrates Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borselino, both murdered by criminals in the 1990s. These two had gone a long way to breaking the power of the mafia in Sicily and to exposing the collusion of some of the country’s most senior politicians in murder, extortion, and drug and people trafficking.

But Saviano has paid a heavy price since he stepped out of obscurity almost a decade ago. His life is not and never will be his own any more. He is shadowed wherever he goes by between five and seven armed members of the Carabinieri, the elite police squadron that has been responsible for his security since 2006. Indeed, he dedicates this latest book to his many bodyguards. To begin with, he had to sleep in a different apartment every night; his family have either been forced into witness protection or compelled to renounce him; and even abroad he needs armed protection around the clock. To this day, he cannot possibly form normal relationships as anyone close to him is transformed automatically into a proxy target for the Camorra. Unlike Salman Rushdie’s fatwa, which was negotiated away by the Iranian and British governments, the Camorra death sentence is for life.

Despite this, he has never stopped writing and broadcasting and his latest book, ZeroZeroZero, a wide-ranging study of the global cocaine industry, includes some remarkable material.

From Mexico and Colombia to Russia, Saviano dissects the groups that have built empires of blood on running coke from, through and into their territories. In Mexico, the deaths attributed to these gangs and, later on, the police and the military amount to more than 100,000 since 2007, with about three times that number internally displaced. If it were anywhere else — or if the causes of the slaughter were different — this would be recognised the world over as a humanitarian catastrophe. But the carnage in Mexico just hums along in the background.

In some countries, such as Colombia, the nastiness associated with cocaine was built on foundations of earlier political violence. But in Rio de Janeiro, for example, where there was relatively little tradition of political violence, the drug wars that broke out in the favelas of Rio resulted in one of the highest homicide rates in the world during the 1990s. Admittedly these visited different parts of the community disproportionately — well over 70 per cent of the victims were young and non-white.

In a short section on the coke economy, Saviano points out why this illegal market generates so much violence. “If you had invested €1,000 in Apple stock in the beginning of 2012, you would have €1,670 in a year. Not bad. But if you had invested €1,000 in cocaine . . . after a year you would have €182,000.” This, of course, assumes that your investment made it safely from the jungle of Colombia to the streets of London but given that, in Britain, police pick up less than 20 per cent of the coke entering the country, it’s a risk worth taking.

Since his reputation has grown, Saviano’s access to the police, to politicians and to lawyers engaged in combating organised crime has clearly improved dramatically. But his notoriety among the criminal fraternity means that he cannot get his hands as dirty in researching the underworld as he did in the past. One of the great achievements of Gomorrah was his vivid description of underworld activities in Naples, such as the huge Chinese trade in counterfeit goods passing through the port.

Saviano still makes a sterling effort to talk to people who are currently or were previously engaged in mobster activity. One of the most absorbing portraits in this book is of a former member of the Kaibiles. These made up a vile military counterinsurgency unit formed during the 1980s in Guatemala to eliminate anybody the government deemed subversive. The Kaibiles later turned their capacity for violence towards the establishment of protection rackets and drug-running operations. Saviano’s interviewee is the most degenerate of criminals, projecting a contempt for those who do not share his obsession with a macho violence that he perversely regards as an elevated human quality.

Saviano has paid a heavy price since he stepped out of obscurity. His life is not his own any more

Tweet this quote

Saviano does not write with the analytical verve that characterises such compatriots of his as Diego Gambetta and Federico Varese, both Oxford academics. Our understanding of the economics, politics and sociology of organised crime has made huge leaps forward in the past 20 years. The power of criminal groups and their ability to assume a decisive role in society depend greatly on circumstances and policy. Where the state is ineffective in policing markets, the mob moves in. This includes licit markets — such as the restaurant business (The Godfather) or waste-disposal (The Sopranos) — as well as illicit markets such as cocaine. Indeed, Vadim Volkov, the Russian scholar, describes criminal gangs carefully as privatised law enforcement agencies.

But what Saviano lacks in academic rigour, he makes up for with an unrivalled passion in describing the damage that organised crime inflicts on society. In articulating this cri de coeur, he has developed a literary style that switches from vivid descriptions of human depravity to a philosophical consideration of the meaning of violence in the modern world. Indeed, when he revisits his work on Naples — the city where he was brought up and from which he is now excluded — his reflections soar into the realm of the poetic. But for me, most important of all is the hope Saviano gives to countless victims of criminal violence by standing up to its perpetrators, especially those from his home country.