The MEG “improved offer” announcement should make a few folks inside CVE uncomfortable. The question investors should be asking isn’t whether the Vawn assets are material to Cenovus, it’s whether the side-deal Strathcona received treats all other MEG shareholders fairly. Because if a private buyer gets a sweetheart deal on sold assets, that’s a transfer of value - plain and simple - and it raises serious questions about compliance with securities-law principles of fair and equal treatment. It’s also striking how the MEG board hides behind its advisors (BMO, RBC) instead of defending its own judgment. “Our advisors told us it was fine” isn’t a fiduciary defense - it’s an abdication of duty. If this ever gets real regulatory attention from the ASC - or even the SEC - the paper trail around valuation assumptions, fairness opinions, and board communications will matter. Until then, rank-and-file CVE employees get to watch leadership pretend the assets were sold at fair value while staff job cuts hang in the balance.
5 replies (most recent on top)
Waterous, is that you? Big Waterous or Little Waterous?
Sounds like a bribe. Why don't the other MEG shareholders get extra too.
Lol you sound desperate posting your absurd thoughts here. Anyways, it’s done tomorrow. Take care and get the help You need.
We just paid a rival to vote for a deal that sc--ws MEG holders and guarantees layoffs. File anonymously: asc.ca → “Report a Concern.”
Feels like this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to potential securities misconduct. Too many things don’t add up lately, while leadership acting like it’s business as usual.