Robert Kronenberg_

Clear Channel Shareholders Get Shafted

Satx - Actually the .75 is the annual dividend. The quarterly dividend is .1875. I have to stop writing these articles at 2 AM. Not only did I forget to divide by 4, but I now notice several typos that got by me in the first 4 middle of the night rereads, and also somehow got by MS Word, which tries to correct that which does not need correcting but didn't pick up obvious mistakes in English. (Thank you Bill Gates). The change in dividend changes the screwing received by public shareholders from $2.1 Billion to a mere 1.77 Billion. I feel much better now. Thanks Satx. :-)

The other numbers that change are the predicted share price if the new deal is rejected, which is now 31.375 instead of 32.50, and the total lost dividends, which are now .375 instead of 1.50.

I hate to change any of the numbers in the article. Thanks to retail pricing and gestalt psychology, 2.1 billion sounds like much more than 1.77 billion. It won't matter if the numbers stay the same. You've all sold anyway, haven't you? You're not waiting to see if they find a way to do you out of the 3.3% you're scheduled to make between now and next September if the deal is approved, are you?

Maybe some descendant of the Alamo with 500 shares and living in San Antonio will hire a lawyer and sue the bums in a Class Action. I hear Attrorney Joe Jamail currently has an opening on his calendar.

Regardless of Outcome, Clear Channel Shareholders Will Win

CORRECTION:

CC Media Holdings is not a “successor” of one of the commitment letter parties. It is a successor to a company called BT Triple Crown Capital Holdings III, which is a party to the Merger Agreement with Clear Channel, but never was a party to the commitment letter. The banks argued that CC Media Holdings was an “affiliate” (not a successor entity) of a party to the commitment letter (BT Triple Crown Merger Co.), but the Texas court found that it was not legally an affiliate.

PARAGRAPH TO WHICH CORRECTION APPLIES:
“The banks may have a valid argument that CC Holdings, as the successor of one of the commitment letter parties, should be forced to litigate in New York, but Clear Channel is not a party to the commitment letter or financing agreements, and the Texas case will continue at least as to Clear Channel.”

Banks Employ Catch-22 Arguments in Clear Channel Suit

Thanks CrossProfit. You are correct. The word "banks" is an error in both sentences you cite. To be consistent within the sentences and the article, the word "banks" should be replaced with the word "borrowers." The word "buyers" would convey the same meaning but since I keep referring to the "buyers" in their role as "borrowers," the word "borrowers" is clearer within the article. The word "borrowers" is, in fact, the word I intended to use when my fingers decided they had a mind of their own and typed "banks."

Regardless of Outcome, Clear Channel Shareholders Will Win

Too long? I agree. In my own defense, a complete understanding of the legal cases required an explanation of the background. I wanted to provide as much information and analysis as possible for those who have a personal interest in Clear Channel. There is some redundancy which I would have edited out if I weren't in a time press to get the article out ahead of the scheduled court proceedings on April 8. I promise that the next article will be a better length for reading on the net.