Article--The Muppets Reloaded

[Luke]

I didn't say it was the reason Disney might have just wanted the characters/library but maybe one of many reasons if they did feel that way. They've already had a lot of problems with the German legal system.

On the second question, as you've seen, it takes 2 months for the aquisition to actually take place once the deal has been signed as it has to be approved by various people. EMTV going bankrupt has been a real possibility for a long time now and the problem is if EMTV went bankrupt between the deal being signed and it being approved. If the banks took control the deal might not go through, the new buyers might have trouble actually getting what they had bought etc etc. It would cause a lot of headache which is easier for a smaller company to stomach than a larger one. So while Disney could have signed an agreement to buy Henson at a point where EMTV were not bankrupt there was no guarantee they would not be by the time the deal actually went through.

 

[BoyRaisin2]

Originally posted by Luke
So while Disney could have signed an agreement to buy Henson at a point where EMTV were not bankrupt there was no guarantee they would not be by the time the deal actually went through.

So in short, Disney could've done their $70-100 mil deal to buy Jim Henson Co., but they were ultimately overly concerned that EM.TV could've gone bankrupt by July or whenever the deal was finalized?

 

[Luke]

Originally posted by BoyRaisin2
So in short, Disney could've done their $70-100 mil deal to buy Jim Henson Co., but they were ultimately overly concerned that EM.TV could've gone bankrupt by July or whenever the deal was finalized?

Yes, well at least from how i see it (i'm not a media analyst) but as to whether they were 'overly concerned' i guess you'd have to see the advice they got before they attempted to sign any deal. At least these were the reasons given in the media but obviously we know the Henson kids didn't step in to stop Disney, and were dissapointed they had walked away.

 

[BoyRaisin2]

Could the rules of the German legal system have prompted Disney to back away from an alleged $135 million bid for Henson back in December? Or were those rumors from Allen & Co. as well?

And when you say Disney would have had the most to lose if EM.TV went "belly up," would this mean Disney would have to pay $70-100 mil for Henson plus whatever amount for money for legal fees if the EM.TV went under? And would that negatively effect shareholders?

 

[Luke]

As i personally see it :-

<<Could the rules of the German legal system have prompted Disney to back away from an alleged $135 million bid for Henson back in December? >>

Not sure, we don't have any firm info on what happened then but it's possible. Thing is though, they went back to bid recently and they were in the same situation so probably not. At a pure guess, maybe they thought it was just too much money. Remember from what we know, EMTV were always reluctant to take less and less money.

<<And when you say Disney would have had the most to lose if EM.TV went "belly up," would this mean Disney would have to pay $70-100 mil for Henson plus whatever amount for money for legal fees if the EM.TV went under? And would that negatively effect shareholders?>>

Yes and Yes, not just a negative effect financially but also publicity wise and time wise !

Remember though, thats how i personally see it from the info we've seen as it all went on, i'm not a media analyst and only have a sketchy knowledge of the legal processes so it could well be wrong.

 

[BoyRaisin2]

With every post I feel smarter.

Since you're obviously media savvy Luke, who are the media analysts and "sources?" They seem to know everything, even when it proves to be wrong.

And what is the overall difference between an agreeement-in-principle (like Valentine had and what Disney had in '89) and a definitive agreement (what EM.TV had in '00 and what the Henson family has now)?

 

[Luke]

Originally posted by BoyRaisin2
who are the media analysts and "sources?" They seem to know everything, even when it proves to be wrong.

And what is the overall difference between an agreeement-in-principle (like Valentine had and what Disney had in '89) and a definitive agreement (what EM.TV had in '00 and what the Henson family has now)?

The "sources" are professional media analysts who are paid to speculate and are usually retained by newspapers etc, they may be "insiders" at the companies concerned or just the normal press contact saying something "off the record". It could also basically be any old media contact the journalist has who would have experience of this kinda thing or maybe even worked with Henson before. It's a pretty loose term to be honest.

An agreement in principle is usually (but not always) an exclusive negotiating period, the company has the basic framework of a deal, and uses that period to work out the specifics and terms of that deal in order to get to a point where they can sign a definitive agreement and complete the sale. A definitive agreement is the point where the deal is signed, negotiations have all but ended and in the case of a public company, all it needs to do is be approved.