How Do You Inadvertently Include A Provision Everyone Is Talking About?

Author:
Updated:
Original:

Everyone's talking about Andrew Ross Sorkin's blockbuster piece in the New York Times which claims that JPMorgan is negotiating to raise its bid price for Bear Stearns in an effort to win over reluctant shareholders. A lot of people who bought shares above the supposedly locked-in sale price last week are smiling today.
One part of the story, however, doesn't make sense. JP Morgan is apparently now claiming, behind the scenes at least, that the original merger contract included several mistakes, including the clause that allows JP Morgan's guarantee of Bear's trading position to survive a vote against the deal by Bear Stearns shareholders. Jamie Dimon is reportedly "apoplectic" that this provision was "inadvertently" included in the deal.
This story can't be right. We were on that conference call on Sunday night, and this provision got a lot of attention on that call. The JP Morgan bankers were very clear that the guarantee would survive a negative vote by Bear Stearns shareholders. The guarantee would survive the life of the guaranteed transactions, JP Morgan's bankers said on the call.
There was a bit of confusion on the call about this provision, so that those on the call had to ask about it several times. But clearly everyone involved was focussed on it. So why are we suddenly being fed a different story through Andrew Ross Sorkin?

JPMorgan in Negotiations to Raise Bear Stearns Bid
[New York Times]

Related