Sunday, July 26, 2009
BC Rail (BCRC) ... and CN Acquisition Limited (CNAL), in Restated Transaction Agreement dated 25 Nov 2003, amended July 13 and 14, 2004
Sunday morning and a kindly rel has fixed my printer which has been out of commission for a while. So imagine my surprise when the paper block was released, and out popped a page headed
RESTATED TRANSACTION AGREEMENT as between our
BCRC (British Columbia Railway Corporation) and BCRC Properties Ltd,
(BCRC and BCR Properties are herein collectively, the "Vendors"),
AND
Canadian National Railway Company, a corporation continued under the laws of Canada and having its registered office at 935 de la Gauchetiere Street West, 16th floor, Montreal, Quebec, H3B 2M9
(the "Purchaser")
AND
CN ACQUISITION LIMITED, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada and having its registered office at 935 de la Gauchetiere Street West, 16th floor, Montreal, Quebec, H3B 2M9
("CNAL")
WITNESSES THAT WHEREAS:
A. BCRC owns 25% of the isued and outstanding shares in the capital of BC Rail Ltd. ("Rail") and 5% of the issued and outstanding partnership units in BC Rail Partnership "BCR Partnership"),
B. BCR Properties owns 75% ... wait ... wait just a doggone minute. "CNAL"? ... "a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada and having its registered office at ..." (same as CNRC above)? So was this corporation freshly incorporated for the purpose of accepting BCRail Properties lands ... at arm's length?
The RESTATED TRANSACTION AGREEMENT made the 25th day of November, 2003, and amended on July 13, 2004 and July 14, 2004 ... is long and it's loaded with things to examine.
Under WITNESS THAT WHEREAS, see especially F, G, H ... and then the new interpretations, especially subsection 1.1, (f) and (g).
(bb) gives the Closing Date as July 14, 2004 "or such other dates as the parties agree";
and under Competition Act Approval, there's an interesting bundle of words at (i), (ii), and (iii), where it seems to struggle with "not sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings before the Competition Tribunal ... in respect of the transaction contemplated herein ... or otherwise in connection with the transfer of the Business to the Purchasor ... "
But if you're like me, you'll finish up wondering if this is The Agreement or not. There are enough black-out lines and missing pages to suggest that it is. Or could be. Or not, as the Parties may decide.
I try to imagine a British Columbia citizen knocking on that door on the 16th floor at 935 de la Gauchetiere Street West, Montreal, Quebec, to ask our questions, and having them say, "What Agreement? Show us the deal." How embarrassing. What agreement? I don't know for sure. Do you? - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
RESTATED TRANSACTION AGREEMENT as between our
BCRC (British Columbia Railway Corporation) and BCRC Properties Ltd,
(BCRC and BCR Properties are herein collectively, the "Vendors"),
AND
Canadian National Railway Company, a corporation continued under the laws of Canada and having its registered office at 935 de la Gauchetiere Street West, 16th floor, Montreal, Quebec, H3B 2M9
(the "Purchaser")
AND
CN ACQUISITION LIMITED, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada and having its registered office at 935 de la Gauchetiere Street West, 16th floor, Montreal, Quebec, H3B 2M9
("CNAL")
WITNESSES THAT WHEREAS:
A. BCRC owns 25% of the isued and outstanding shares in the capital of BC Rail Ltd. ("Rail") and 5% of the issued and outstanding partnership units in BC Rail Partnership "BCR Partnership"),
B. BCR Properties owns 75% ... wait ... wait just a doggone minute. "CNAL"? ... "a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada and having its registered office at ..." (same as CNRC above)? So was this corporation freshly incorporated for the purpose of accepting BCRail Properties lands ... at arm's length?
The RESTATED TRANSACTION AGREEMENT made the 25th day of November, 2003, and amended on July 13, 2004 and July 14, 2004 ... is long and it's loaded with things to examine.
Under WITNESS THAT WHEREAS, see especially F, G, H ... and then the new interpretations, especially subsection 1.1, (f) and (g).
(bb) gives the Closing Date as July 14, 2004 "or such other dates as the parties agree";
and under Competition Act Approval, there's an interesting bundle of words at (i), (ii), and (iii), where it seems to struggle with "not sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings before the Competition Tribunal ... in respect of the transaction contemplated herein ... or otherwise in connection with the transfer of the Business to the Purchasor ... "
But if you're like me, you'll finish up wondering if this is The Agreement or not. There are enough black-out lines and missing pages to suggest that it is. Or could be. Or not, as the Parties may decide.
I try to imagine a British Columbia citizen knocking on that door on the 16th floor at 935 de la Gauchetiere Street West, Montreal, Quebec, to ask our questions, and having them say, "What Agreement? Show us the deal." How embarrassing. What agreement? I don't know for sure. Do you? - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
[PDF] IRA #
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/seatosky/addenda/STS_RFP_Addendum_7.pdf
I typed in CN ACQUISITION BC rail and came up with several hits, the one above is interesting in that it uses the capitalzied word Aquistion as a defining moment between whom is responsible for upgrades on the the sea to sky highway..... my question is: does these costs take away from the One Billion Dollars that the public recieved or....
The documented is not blacked out but rather highlighted in yellow, by whom, is not clear
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/seatosky/addenda/STS_RFP_Addendum_7.pdf
I typed in CN ACQUISITION BC rail and came up with several hits, the one above is interesting in that it uses the capitalzied word Aquistion as a defining moment between whom is responsible for upgrades on the the sea to sky highway..... my question is: does these costs take away from the One Billion Dollars that the public recieved or....
The documented is not blacked out but rather highlighted in yellow, by whom, is not clear
NVG hope you saved the document that you gave the link for, I was looking forwad to reviewing it,but...
this is what the page said
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
EM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is what the page said
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
EM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# posted by 
: July 27, 2009 at 7:52 a.m.
: July 27, 2009 at 7:52 a.m.
NVG, the highlighting is done to highlight changes from the original document. It makes it easier to track changes, when working on large documents becomes a collaborative effort.
EM, try again if you haven't already. I've not had a problem retrieving the document.
Post a Comment
EM, try again if you haven't already. I've not had a problem retrieving the document.
# posted by : July 27, 2009 at 5:53 p.m.
: July 27, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. << Home
