DOCSLIB.ORG

ALCATEL LUCENT (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ALCATEL LUCENT (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ________________ Form 20-F [ ] REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR [ ] SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Commission file number: 1-11130 ALCATEL LUCENT (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) N/A (Translation of Registrant’s name into English) Republic of France (Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) 54, rue La Boétie 75008 Paris, France (Address of principal executive offices) Rémi Thomas Telephone Number 33 (1) 40 76 10 10 Facsimile Number 33 (1) 40 76 14 00 54, rue La Boétie 75008 Paris, France (Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile Number and Address of Company Contact Person) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Name of each exchange Title of each class on which registered American Depositary Shares, each representing one ordinary share, nominal value €2 per share* New York Stock Exchange ____________ * Listed, not for trading or quotation purposes, but only in connection with the registration of the American Depositary Shares pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report. 2,317,441,420 ordinary shares, nominal value €2 per share Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes [X] No [ ] If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes [ ] No [X] Note — checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those sections. Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one): Large accelerated filer [X] Accelerated filer [ ] Non-accelerated filer [ ] Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing: U.S. GAAP [ ] International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board [X] Other [ ] If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow: Item 17 [ ] Item 18 [ ] If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ] No [X] WorldReginfo - 1702f03a-0dc2-4e2e-b0ae-0a7072b5bb48 Table of Contents 1 Selected financial data..................................................................................... 5 1.1 Condensed consolidated income statement and balance sheet data...............................................................6 1.2 Exchange rate information ...................................................................................................................................7 2 Activity overview............................................................................................... 8 2.1 Carrier Segment......................................................................................................................................................8 2.2 Enterprise Segment................................................................................................................................................9 2.3 Services Segment....................................................................................................................................................9 3 Risk factors.................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Risks relating to the business combination between Alcatel and Lucent ....................................................10 3.2 Risks relating to the business..............................................................................................................................11 3.3 Legal risks..............................................................................................................................................................13 3.4 Risks relating to the market ................................................................................................................................14 3.5 Risks relating to ownership of our ADSs.........................................................................................................16 4 Information about the Group .......................................................................... 18 4.1 General...................................................................................................................................................................18 4.2 History and development....................................................................................................................................18 4.3 Structure of the principal companies consolidated in the Group as of December 31, 2007....................22 4.4 Real estate and equipment ..................................................................................................................................23 4.5 Material contracts.................................................................................................................................................24 5 Description of the Group’s activities............................................................... 27 5.1 Business organization..........................................................................................................................................27 5.2 Carrier Segment....................................................................................................................................................28 5.3 Enterprise Segment..............................................................................................................................................32 5.4 Services Segment..................................................................................................................................................33 5.5 Marketing and distribution of our products.....................................................................................................34 5.6 Competition ..........................................................................................................................................................34 5.7 Technology, Research and Development.........................................................................................................35 5.8 Intellectual property.............................................................................................................................................36 5.9 Sources and availability of materials..................................................................................................................37 5.10 Seasonality .............................................................................................................................................................37 5.11 Our activities in certain countries ......................................................................................................................37 5.12 Environmental matters........................................................................................................................................37 5.13 Human resources..................................................................................................................................................38 2 - 2007 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 20-F WorldReginfo - 1702f03a-0dc2-4e2e-b0ae-0a7072b5bb48 6 Operating and financial review and prospects ............................................... 45 6.1 Overview of 2007.................................................................................................................................................50 6.2 Consolidated results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended December 31, 2006............................................................................................51 6.3 Results of operations by business segment for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended December 31, 2006...........................................................................................54
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Liquidity and Asset Prices Liquidity and Asset Prices
    Liquidity and Asset Prices Liquidity and Asset Prices Yakov Amihud Ira Leon Rennert Professor of Finance Stern School of Business New York University [email protected] Haim Mendelson The Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers Professor of Electronic Business and Commerce, and Management Graduate School of Business Stanford University Lasse Heje Pedersen Charles Schaefer Associate Professor of Finance Stern School of Business New York University Boston – Delft Foundations and Trends R in Finance Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 USA Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com [email protected] Outside North America: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 179 2600 AD Delft The Netherlands Tel. +31-6-51115274 A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress The preferred citation for this publication is Y. Amihud, H. Mendelson, and L.H. Pedersen, Liquidity and Asset Prices, Foundation and Trends R in Finance, vol 1, no 4, pp 269–364, 2005 Printed on acid-free paper ISBN: 1-933019-12-3 c 2006 Y. Amihud, H. Mendelson, and L.H. Pedersen All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers. Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Cen- ter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by now Publishers Inc for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Ranking of Brokerage Firms 01/09/2018 - 30/09/2018
    Month: 2018-09 Monthly Ranking of Brokerage Firms 01/09/2018 - 30/09/2018 EGX Information Center - Monthly Ranking of Brokerage Firms Page 1 Issued on : 01/10/2018 01/09/2018 - 30/09/2018 Brokerage Firms in Terms of Value Traded (Main Market - OTC - NILEX) Volume Value Traded % of # of # Brokerage Firm Traded (LE) Total Trades (Share) 1 Financial Brokerage Group 6,722,889,142 17.7% 641,074,707 46,480 2 Commercial International Brokerage company (CIBC) 2,897,758,232 7.6% 446,497,430 58,700 3 Beltone Securities Brokerage 2,434,066,653 6.4% 382,741,289 32,793 4 Pharos Securities 2,360,244,245 6.2% 242,045,477 17,047 5 Arab African International Securities 2,344,724,462 6.2% 147,489,664 10,106 6 Hermes Securities Brokerage 2,154,876,769 5.7% 778,888,588 55,347 7 Arqaam Securities Brokerage 1,752,661,044 4.6% 143,967,772 27,418 8 Pioneers Securities 1,343,291,915 3.5% 534,035,101 57,215 9 Mubasher International For Securities 965,250,854 2.5% 362,095,597 41,397 10 Naeem Brokerage 945,885,668 2.5% 315,440,142 25,466 11 Sigma Securities Brokerage 934,307,496 2.5% 321,416,657 31,886 12 HSBC Securities Egypt S.A.E 859,787,800 2.3% 24,591,458 7,176 13 HC Brokerage 727,084,286 1.9% 120,338,782 19,027 14 Arabeya Online Securities 718,347,298 1.9% 335,448,129 33,686 15 Prime Securities Brokerage 602,869,331 1.6% 122,262,766 11,786 16 Shuaa securities 599,308,708 1.6% 180,864,539 15,334 17 Egyptian Arabian Company(Themar) 480,005,229 1.3% 183,291,230 20,275 18 Ifa Securities Brokerage 401,523,234 1.1% 221,943,955 8,319 19 Metro Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Stock Options and Dividend Policy
    Executive Stock-Based Compensation and Firms’ Cash Payout: The Role of Shareholders’ Tax-Related Payout Preferences David Aboody Anderson Graduate School of Management University of California at Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095 Tel: (310) 825-3393 [email protected] and Ron Kasznik Graduate School of Business Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 Tel: (650) 725-9740 [email protected] March 2007 Under material revision David Aboody acknowledges the support of the Anderson School at UCLA. Ron Kasznik acknowledges the support of the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. We appreciate the comments and suggestions by William Beaver, Jack Hughes, Brett Trueman, and workshop participants at the University of British Columbia, Harvard Business School, University of Minnesota, Ohio State University, and the Accounting Summer Camp at Stanford University. Executive Stock-Based Compensation and Firms’ Cash Payout: The Role of Shareholders’ Tax-Related Payout Preferences ABSTRACT This study investigates the extent to which the structure of executive stock-based compensation helps to align managers’ cash payout choices with shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences. Specifically, shareholders’ preferences between dividends, which are taxed as ordinary income, and stock repurchases, which can result in gains taxed as long-term capital gains, can depend on the relative magnitudes of their tax consequences. Similarly, to the extent that executives make payout choices that increase their compensation, stock options, which are not dividend-protected, can induce managers to favor repurchases over dividends as a form of payout. In contrast, compensation in the form of restricted stock, which is dividend-protected, is more likely to induce the use of dividends.
    [Show full text]
  • Share Capital
    SHARE CAPITAL CAPITAL STRUCTURE The table below sets out details relating to our share capital as at the Latest Practicable Date. Authorised share capital(1): 3,600,000,000. Common Shares 7,200,000,000. Class A Preferred Shares Issued, fully paid or credited as fully paid(2): 3,256,724,482. Common Shares in issue 2,108,579,606. Class A Preferred Shares in issue 12. Golden Shares in issue Notes: (1) The By-laws authorise the issue of shares forming part of the authorised share capital of the Common Shares and the Class A Preferred Shares by the Board without any further approval by Shareholders. (2) Including 47,375,394 Common Shares and 99,649,571 Class A Preferred Shares in treasury. TWO CLASSES OF SHARES Our share capital is currently divided into two classes of shares: (i) Common Shares and (ii) Preferred Shares. The two classes of Shares were first issued at the time of our incorporation on 11 January 1943. The Preferred Shares are further divided into Class A Preferred Shares and Golden Shares. All of the issued Shares are registered shares with no nominal value. In accordance with our privatisation deed, the Shareholders’ meeting held after the privatisation approved the introduction of the Golden Share to be exclusively owned by the Brazilian Government which carried special veto rights over certain matters specified in the By-laws. After subsequent share splits, there are now 12 Golden Shares in issue. All of the Golden Shares are owned by the Brazilian Government. For more information on the rights attached to the Golden Shares, please refer to “Voting rights” below.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021-2022 Biennial BUDGET 2021 - 2022 CITY of GOLDEN, COLORADO BUDGET and CAPITAL PROGRAMS
    CITY OF GOLDEN 2021-2022 Biennial BUDGET 2021 - 2022 CITY OF GOLDEN, COLORADO BUDGET AND CAPITAL PROGRAMS 2021 – 2022 Golden Downtown General Improvement District Budget 2021-2022 Downtown Development Authority Budget 2021 Budget Adopted by Resolution of the Golden City Council on December 3, 2020 2019 GOLDEN CITY COUNCIL Laura Weinberg, Mayor Robert Reed, Ward I Paul Haseman, Ward II Jim Dale, Ward III Bill Fisher, Ward IV JJ Trout, District I Casey Brown, Mayor Pro-Tem District II Submitted by: Jason Slowinski City Manager 2021Ͳ2022CITYOFGOLDENBIENNIALBUDGET TABLEOFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION BudgetMessage...................................................................................................................1 BudgetCalendar..................................................................................................................15 CitizensBudgetAdvisoryCommitteeMessage...................................................................17 GFOADistinguishedBudgetPresentationAward................................................................19 ϮϬϮϭͲϮϬϮϮBudgetSummaryFundTypeDescriptions.........................................................20 ϮϬϮϭͲϮϬϮϮFundStructureChart.........................................................................................24 ϮϬϮϭBudgetSummaryRevenueandExpenditureChartofallFunds.................................25 ϮϬϮϮBudgetSummaryRevenueandExpenditureChartofallFunds.................................26 ϮϬϮϭBudgetSummary–ByFundType.............................................................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Concentrated Stock Positions
    EXPERIENCED AND INDEPENDENT ADVISORS WORKING PRIMARILY WITH ACCREDITED ENGINEERS, EXECUTIVES, AND ENTREPRENEURS 9237 Ward Parkway, Suite 320 | Kansas City, MO 64114 19 Essential Rules, Peter Vrooman, CFA®, CIMA®, CRPC® Jonathan Sarver, CPWA® Partner, Wealth Advisor Partner, Wealth Advisor Concepts, and Strategies Fundamental Choice Portfolio Manager Fundamental Choice Portfolio Manager 816-601-1152 816-601-1151 for Managing Concentrated [email protected] [email protected] Stock Positions and Stock Option Compensation MANAGING CONCENTRATED STOCK POSITIONS Rule #1 Buying a Hedged Put Option A put option affords an investor the right but not the obligation to sell a specified number of shares of the underlying stock, at a specified strike price, over a specified period of time, prior to expiration of the option. hedgedA put option is created when an investor owns a stock outright and pays a premium amount to purchases put options on the stock he or she owns to protect the stock price in the case of a decline (Knapp, 2001). Rule #2 Writing or Selling a Covered Call Option A call option provides an investor the right but not the obligation to buy a specified number of shares of the underlying stock, at a specified strike price, over a specified period of time, prior to expiration of the option. coveredA call option is created when an investor owns a stock outright and sells or writes call options on the underlying stock he or she owns, generating premium income, which is paid by the buyer of the call option. The covered call writer has the goal of modest appreciation and retention of the stock and income generation.
    [Show full text]
  • Restricted Stock & Restricted Stock Units
    Restricted Stock & Restricted Stock Units Bruce Brumberg, Editor-in-Chief myStockOptions.com [email protected] 617-734-1979 Copyright © myStockPlan.com, Inc. Please do not distribute or copy without permission. Restricted stock grant v. stock options • Historically, often part of senior executives’ comp, alongside options. • Popularity with institutional investors runs in cycles: restricted stock is often derided as having little motivational power (“pay for a pulse”). • Has been most useful in employee recruitment/retention when leaving behind valuable options or when the stock price is flat. • Big increases in grants at levels below senior management, although not as broadly granted as options. • Now the top alternative to stock options, whether granted instead of or in combination with options. • Accounting treatment becomes similar between types of equity compensation: “level playing field.” • Less dilution than with options because fewer granted. • Value in down and volatile markets: never underwater, gets dividends, but less upside compared with options. Bill Gates on the move from options to restricted stock at Microsoft: less risk for you than stock options • “When you win [with options], you win the lottery. And when you don't win, you still want it. The fact is that the variation in the value of an option is just too great.” • “I can imagine an employee going home at night and considering two wildly different possibilities with his compensation program. Either he can buy six summer homes or no summer homes. Either he can send his kids to college 50 times, or no times.” • “The variation is huge; much greater than most employees have an appetite for.
    [Show full text]
  • Restricted Stock: What You Need to Know for Executive Recruitment
    Bruce Brumberg, Editor-in-Chief [email protected] 617-734-1979 Copyright © 2013 myStockPlan.com Inc. Please do not distribute or copy without permission. Content, tools, and CE credits for companies, plan participants, and financial advisors Similar resources on nonqualified deferred comp for companies, plan participants, and financial advisors Key terms and definitions to know Trends in equity compensation Researching companies’ stock grants Key questions to ask clients, both to gather information and to sound knowledgeable Restricted stock/RSU grants; performance shares and units Taxes on restricted stock/performance shares Tax changes for 2013 Rule 10b5-1 trading plans and other features in stock grants to executives Stock options (NQSOs & ISOs) Stock appreciation rights Employee stock purchase plan (ESPP) Restricted stock Restricted stock units Performance shares or units Market Stock Units (MSOs) Restricted securities Long-term incentive plans (LTIPs) Stock options/SARs: Nonqualified stock options (NQSOs) remain the most common LTIP: Executives: 91% grant NQSOs & 56% grant ISOs Middle Management: 83% (NQS0) & 53% (ISO) Stock grants/awards (time-vested restricted stock or RSUs): 89% grant to executives; 85% to middle managers. Performance-based awards: 71% of companies now offer these awards, compared to 64% in the prior survey. 50% 47% 45% 45% 42% 43% 39% 40% 35% 33% 32% 27% 30% 27% 26% 25% 25% 21% 20% 16% 15% 13% 13% 14% 15% 13% 11% 10% 12% 11% 10% 7% 7% 5% 0% Stock Options/SARs Restricted Stock/RSUs Performance Awards Restricted stock/RSU grants: More common than stock options. 71% of companies grant these awards to employees, including managers.
    [Show full text]
  • Limited but Not Lost: a Comment on the ECJ's Golden Share Decisions
    Fordham Law Review Volume 72 Issue 5 Article 35 2004 Limited But Not Lost: A Comment on the ECJ's Golden Share Decisions Christine O'Grady Putek Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Christine O'Grady Putek, Limited But Not Lost: A Comment on the ECJ's Golden Share Decisions, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 2219 (2004). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol72/iss5/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT LIMITED BUT NOT LOST: A COMMENT ON THE ECJ'S GOLDEN SHARE DECISIONS Christine O'Grady Putek* INTRODUCTION Consider the following scenario:' Remo is a large industrialized nation with a widget manufacturer, Well-Known Co. ("WK") which has a strong international reputation, and is uniquely identified with Remo. WK is an important provider of jobs in southern Remo. Because of WK's importance to Remo, for both economic and national pride reasons, Remo has a special law (the "WK law"), which gives the government of southern Remo a degree of control over WK, all in the name of protection of the company from unwanted foreign takeovers and of other national interests, such as employment. The law caps the number of voting shares that any one investor may own, and gives the government of Southern Remo influence over key company decisions by allowing it to appoint half the board of directors.
    [Show full text]
  • The 21St Century Tontine Lookalike: Tax Aspects of Stock Protection Funds
    The 21st Century Tontine Lookalike: Tax Aspects of Stock Protection Funds By Thomas Boczar and Mark Leeds* Thomas Boczar and Mark Leeds explore certain federal income tax considerations applicable to stock protection funds. ontine Trusts, initially devised in the 17th century by Lorenzo de Tonti to help governments fund war efforts, are making a 21st century resurgence.1 A tontine is an investment plan based on the principles of risk pooling, Tdesigned to mitigate the risk of running out of income during one’s lifetime. A new stock hedging technique recently invented by Brian Yolles,2 called the Stock Protection Fund or Stock Protection Trust,3 is now available in the market that provides a modern twist on the traditional tontine trusts. A Protection Fund creates a low-cost strategy for hedging concentrated equity exposure. This article explores certain federal income tax considerations applicable to Protec- tion Funds. As described in detail below, Protection Fund transactions avoid a number of tax challenges that are posed by traditional hedging techniques. Many individual investors own appreciated positions in publicly-traded stock. In many cases, these stock positions comprise a significant portion of the holder’s net worth. Such investors face a challenging environment. The stock market is at an all-time high, interest rates are ratcheting up, and risks seem to be lurking everywhere around the globe. Investors also face considerable tax uncertainty. Since 2013, the tax cost of selling outright has skyrocketed, with the capital gains tax rate increasing almost 60%.4 However, with President Trump in office and a Republican-controlled Congress, the possibility of significant tax reform THOMAS BOCZAR is the President and is “in the air,” which might include a reduction in the capital gains tax rate, the Chief Executive Officer of Intelligent elimination of the estate tax, and the loss of the tax-free step-up in tax cost basis Edge Advisors.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions Restricted Stock Awards and Restricted Stock Units
    Frequently Asked Questions Restricted Stock Awards and Restricted Stock Units Table of Contents Grant Date Status Change (LOA, termination) Vesting Date Selling or Transferring Shares Miscellaneous Grant Date Q1 What is a restricted stock award (RSA)? RSAs are an award of HP shares, which is subject to certain restrictions. When you receive an RSA you have the rights associated with owning HP common stock, including voting at the annual meeting of HP stockholders and receiving dividends; however, you do not have the right to sell, pledge or otherwise transfer the shares for a specified period of time (the vesting period). Once the vesting period expires and the restrictions lapse, you receive the shares of HP common stock and are free to hold, sell or transfer the shares. RSAs are granted at no cost to you, therefore the total value of the award on any given day is equal to the stock price on that day multiplied by the number of shares you received. The value of the award will increase and decrease, with the stock price, during the vesting period. Q2 What is the restriction or vesting period? The restriction, or vesting period, is the length of time before the restrictions lapse. For example, if you were granted 1,000 shares with 50% vesting after one year and 50% vesting after three years, then 500 shares would vest one year after the grant date and the remaining 500 shares would vest three years after the grant date. You will find the vesting period specific to your award in your Stock Notification and Award Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Assertions, the Golden Share Was Not a Condition Ofthe 1997 Enron/PGE Merger Transaction" and in Fact, PGE Did Not Create T
    assertions, the golden share was not a condition ofthe 1997 Enron/PGE merger transaction" and in fact, PGE did not create this golden share mechanism until after Enron declared bankruptcy. Once Enron declared bankruptcy in 2001, PGE worked with S&P to develop a structure to avoid future downgrades ofPGE's bond ratings. PGE opted to issue one share with special voting rights with respect to any voluntary action by PGE regarding bankruptcy. PGE chose the holder ofthe share; neither the Oregon Public Utility Commission ("OPUC") nor its staff directly selected the shareholder. In 2002, OPUC approved PGE's application seeking authority to issue the single share of $1.00 par value Junior Preferred Stock in order to further insulate PGE from the effects of the Enron bankruptcy. 80 Thus, CPB is mistaken when it claims: "In fact ... as the DPS Staffs Policy Panel testified on cross-examination by the CPB, it was the existence of a golden share provision that was the entire reason why Portland was not dragged into the Enron bankruptcy" (CPB JB at 17). This misses the key point: because the so-called "golden share" provision in Oregon was not implemented until after Enron filed for bankruptcy protection. what the case actually shows is that state regulators have the means and ability, even after a holding company bankruptcy, to work cooperatively with a utility to protect itself from the effects of a parent's bankruptcy. Staff's third and final example claims that an LPE mechanism was required as a condition of the Mid-American Holding Company C'Mid-American") and PacitiCorp merger 79 In the merger order, POE was directed to maintain its own long-term debt ratings and preferred stock ratings for as long as it had preferred stock outstanding; to maintain the common equity portion of its capital structure at 48 G/o or higher unless a different level was approved; and to file information and disclosure notices for affiliated interest transactions.
    [Show full text]