Altice, Cablevision Still not Making Case for Merger, MFRConsulting Says
Altice and Cablevision relied on unsubstantiated assertions and unwarranted assumptions, while ignoring the findings of opponents, in their joint rebuttal (see 1512230046) to opponents and critics of Altice's proposed takeover of Cablevision, MFRConsulting said in a filing Wednesday in FCC…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
docket 15-257. The $17.7 billion deal faces opposition or calls for conditions by parties including MFR, the Communications Workers of America and Zoom Telephonics. In its filing in response to Altice/Cablevision joint reply comments, MFR repeated its previous arguments (see 1512090034) that Cablevision post-acquisition could face "substantial risks" from the debt load that Altice would assign it and from Altice's "well documented verifiable pattern of anti-competitive and other ultimately customer-hostile business practices." In a statement, Altice said it anticipates "a fair and open regulatory process with the relevant authorities in connection with our proposed Cablevision transaction, and as in all of our other territories we expect to deliver significant benefits to consumers and their communities."