Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          31, 1985, MGM's bank debt stood at $98 million, consisting of $89           
          million in borrowings under a $175 million revolving credit                 
          facility, and $9 million under an agreement providing for bank              
          borrowings of up to $10 million to cover daily operating                    
          requirements.                                                               
               In anticipation of the merger, TBS offered to exchange                 
          $1,100 of its subordinated notes for each $1,000 principal amount           
          of the MGM Notes, provided the exchanging MGM Note Holder                   
          consented to certain modifications of the MGM Indenture.  The               
          Merger Agreement did not require TBS to make the exchange offer             
          for the MGM Notes, and TBS' obligation to close its acquisition             
          of MGM was not contingent upon the successful consummation of the           
          exchange offer.  However, the exchange offer was conditioned upon           
          consummation of the merger.  The exchange offer remained open               
          through March 31, 1986.                                                     
               The original Merger Agreement and other transaction                    
          documents were first executed on August 6, 1985.  At that time,             
          MGM believed that its tax basis in UA was not materially                    
          different from the $9 per share value of UA set forth in the                
          Merger Agreement.  Accordingly, MGM believed and informed TBS               
          that a sale of UA would not produce any material gain or loss.              
          This information was incorrect.  MGM's tax basis in the UA shares           
          exceeded the consideration received by MGM.  The parties disagree           
          as to the extent of the excess; however, none of the parties have           
          contended that MGM's basis did not exceed the consideration                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011