Will Digicel buy Belize Telemedia?

Over the past few months, a number of media outlets have speculated that Digicel is considering a possible acquisition of Belize Telemedia Ltd. (BTL) shares.  Amandala, a newspaper in Belize, noted in an article on Friday "that a Digicel team was given a tour at BTL last week, and they are in the process of exchanging information, under the terms of a non-disclosure agreement between the parties".  

Digicel's interest in BTL is somewhat surprising. Clearly, Digicel is not afraid of political risk.  Indeed, given its presence in markets such as Fiji, Haiti and Honduras (all of whom have faced coup d'états in the not-so-distant past), it is tempting to conclude that Digicel thrives on, and seeks, such risk. However, in the case of Belize, the political risk is different.  While the local parliamentary institutions are relatively stable and democratic, they have an unfortunate propensity to exercise political control over (and interfere with?) the telecommunications industry.  This propensity was at its peak in August 2009, when the Belize National Assembly amended the country’s Telecommunications Act and allowed the Government to seize control of BTL, with shares to be distributed to domestic investors.  This propensity is also demonstrated by the Government's current refusal to sell a controlling interest in BTL to Digicel, thereby limiting Digicel's participation to a minority shareholding.

Besides political risk, an investment in BTL would involve a significant degree of legal risk for Digicel.  As a result of the recent nationalization of BTL, some of the former shareholders of BTL have instituted proceedings before the Belize Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the legislation which expropriated their shareholdings.  They argued that there was no legitimate public purpose for the compulsory acquisition of the shares, that it was not necessary to compulsorily acquire the shares in order to achieve the public purpose stated in the legislation, that the acquisition was disproportionate and discriminatory, and that - in reality - the real purpose of this acquisition was to target Michael Ashcroft's alleged interest in BTL. The Supreme Court issued a judgment in this matter in July 2010 dismissing the challenges to the constitutionality of the nationalization, but directing the Government of Belize to pay compensation without delay.  This decision is currently under appeal.

In early September, Digicel received a formal notification by the shareholders' attorneys indicating that:

In the event that any shares in BTL were to be transferred prior to the final determination of our clients' rights on appeal, such transfer would be liable to be set aside in the event that the appeal court finds that the compulsory acquisition was unlawful and invalid.  In such circumstances, the [Government of Belize] would have no title to the shares which could be validly transferred.  

Therefore, in addition to the political risks, as demonstrated by the recent nationalization of BTL, Digicel is also faced with the legal risk that its investment in BTL could be invalidated on appeal.  

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this investment does not appear to fit Digicel's overall business strategy of going head-to-head with incumbent telecom operators in recently liberalized markets.  In this case, rather than being an "incumbent fighter", Digicel would become a minority shareholder in the incumbent operator.  This could  restrict Digicel's ability to replicate the formula it used successfully across the Caribbean, Central American and Pacific, namely to target budget-conscious prepaid users with intense local marketing and sponsorship.  It is precisely for this reason that Digicel decided to delay its entry into the Bahamian telecom market earlier this year (see article in the Nassau Guardian).

Clearly, Digicel will have to think twice before making an investment in BTL...

Barbados FTC Denies Digicel Motion to Review Consolidated RIO Decision

The Barbados Fair Trading Commission has denied a motion by Digicel for review of a February 2010 decision on Cable & Wireless' Consolidated Reference Interconnection Offer (RIO).  In its submissions, Digicel alleged that the FTC's February 2010 decision was reached in breach of the principles of natural justice and, in particular, that the FTC failed to adequately consult Digicel on certain amendments to the Consolidated RIO requested by Cable & Wireless. 

As part of its motion for review, Digicel submitted that the FTC should communicate to Digicel any changes made, no matter how minor, to the Consolidated RIO.  In its decision, the FTC concluded that this is not required by the Barbados Telecommunications Act.  The FTC also noted that, as part of the proceeding leading up to its February 2010 decision, Digicel had been given ample opportunity to make submissions on the amendments to the Consolidated RIO and therefore that there was no breach of the principles of natural justice.

This decision is a good illustration of the fact that telecom regulators, when adjudicating interconnection disputes, must ensure that all parties are given an opportunity to be heard.  This is particularly true in the Caribbean context, where the telecom industry is becoming increasingly litigious (especially in interconnection matters).