Brutkey

Jean-Francois Mezei
@jfmezei@mstdn.ca

Mobilicity court decision:

• these Plaintiffs (and other licencees and investors therein) of which there are a very limited and discrete number, were specifically courted and encouraged;

• the universe of such individuals was extremely limited. It is a small cohort that was in a position to invest the significant capital necessary to successfully bid for the spectrum licences at auction, and then build out a wireless network;

• the conduct of the Government and its officials in 2013 in introducing and implementing the 2013 Transfer Framework, which had the effect of amending the key attributes of the spectrum licences issued in the 2008 AWS auction was unique and affected this same small cohort of parties;

• the conduct of the Government in 2014 in planting a story in the Globe & Mail was highly irregular and unusual;

• the conduct of the Government in 2014 in directly interfering with the Mobilicity CCAA proceeding, and <...> in 2015 interfering with the action of Mobilicity was also highly irregular.

Jean-Francois Mezei
@jfmezei@mstdn.ca

Context: Govt having blocked Telus-Mobilicity transaction, Mobilicity went CCAA and CCAA judge wanted to force the transfer of spectrum which minister had refused...

343. Ministry employees, together with senior political personnel from the Minister’s Office such as Nicholson and Jessica Fletcher, the Minister’s Director of Communications (“Fletcher”), strategically leaked a story to the Globe & Mail national newspaper. The purpose of the manufactured and planted story, attributed to an anonymous “senior government official”, was to threaten TELUS and any other incumbent bidder for Mobilicity and its spectrum licences.

344. The threat was clear: if TELUS or either of the other two Incumbents continued to pursue the Mobilicity spectrum licences, the Government would exclude them from the then upcoming 2500 MHz spectrum auction, which, to the knowledge of the Government, was critical to TELUS.

Dirty tricks in government are not as rare as we thought.
#CRTC

Jean-Francois Mezei
@jfmezei@mstdn.ca

Correction on previous posts:

Rogers offered to buy Shaw's original AWS spectrum in 2013, pending expiration of 5 year moratorium .

Government immediatly changed policy to ignore the 5 year sunset on prohibituion of such transactions. (impacting Telus buying Mobilicity and sending later into CCAA).

Early 2015: Spectrum auction for 700MHz, AWS-3 and 2500 MHz resulted in remaining new entrants having 25% of spectrum in Canada, and the minister then declared mission accomplished and removed the band that had been indefinitely extended beyond contracted 5 years.

Mobilicity entertained bids with Rogers-Telus bidding against each other. Rogers won with $465m. (blocked Telus-Mobilicity in 2013 was $380m).

Rogers puchased Mobilicity and Shaw's AWS spectrum but with convoluted spectrum exchanges with Wind.

(Shaw would eventually buy Wind to save it from bankruptcy).

So the Rogers-Shaw was NOT approved prior to minister changing rules to ban Telus-Mobilicity,

Jean-Francois Mezei
@jfmezei@mstdn.ca

Mobilicity saga:
Minister tells Telus and Rogers that the buyer of Mobilicity must give some spectrum to Wind as requirememt for approval.

Wind tells Telus that a contract with Rogers prevents it from accepting spectrum from Telus.

Telus goes to government and offer to return spectrum to IC and IC could then distribute to whomever it wants (aka Wind).

Industry Canada issues letter to Telus saying it might take 12 weeks to approve such a scheme.
Telus drops out of bidding, Rogers wins,
Industry Canada approves Rogers-Shaw-Mobilicity-Wind four-some same day.

Amazing the soap opera material one learns in court decisions 🙂