Cedar Fair encourages unit holders to vote against Q Investment proposals

Posted Monday, December 13, 2010 1:04 PM | Contributed by Jeff

[Ed. note: The following is an excerpt from the press release issued by Cedar Fair. -J]

The Board of Directors of Cedar Fair Entertainment Company (NYSE: FUN), a leader in regional amusement parks, water parks and active entertainment, today sent a letter to all unitholders stating its reasons for opposing the proposals submitted by Q Funding III, L.P. and Q4 Funding, L.P. (“Q Investments”), one of the Company’s largest unitholders, to be considered at a Special Meeting of Unitholders on January 11, 2011.

The Board believes the proposed amendments to the Company’s Partnership Agreement would not be in the best interests of unitholders because they would severely limit the options available to the Board in pursuit of its strategy to maximize long-term value. In addition, they would greatly disrupt the Company’s deliberate and ongoing succession planning process that is well under way and is expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2011.

Read the entire press release from Cedar Fair.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:40 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

Wow. How's kninzel and co gonna respond now?

Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:02 PM

Interesting. Sounds like there are liars on both sides of the see-saw. Notice again that if it weren't for Q and its filings, none of this would ever be made public. Even with litigation involved, I can't see a judge putting a gag order in place over an issue that would possibly affect a company's stock price and/or is an issue of which stockholders should be aware.

buckeyes, I'm aware of other litigation taken by Raynor and Q, particularly in the XO Communications issue. Are you saying in that case they were wrong to call out Icahn and his tricks to screw all the shareholders while profiting on the deal?

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:28 PM

Court probably wouldn't have to put on a gag order. Each side's counsels would put their own clients under one. Why risk putting a contradictory statement, statement taken out of context, etc. out there when you know there is litigation pending? Its why folks go into "No comment" mode when there is pending litigation or known soon to be litigation.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:10 PM

RGB- Don't know a whole lot about the Q/XO case but do know Q has filed a slew of lawsuits. I'm just overly cautious of Q and Raynor's intentions. I think it says a lot about their "short term/quick profit" intentions when:

1. Raynor was offered a seat on the Board and he declined!

2. Out of 30 stocks in their portfolio, only 1 has been held for 2 years or more!

3. In one year, they have filed 3 lawsuits vs. CF

4. The 2 people Raynor appointed to the Board a few months ago are publicly calling Raynor a liar and believe his actions will do nothing but hurt the long-term growth of CF.

Bad situation. Their current CEO needs to go and has now been called out for lying about the dismissal of the COO and their biggest investor wants to make a quick buck and run, and doesn't have much of a care what he leaves behind.

Last edited by Buckeyes1, Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:11 PM
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:20 PM
LostKause's avatar

Yeah, buying shares of a company, with only the intention of making a profit on the purchase, is totally evil. ;)

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:34 PM
birdhombre's avatar

^ Man, Travis, between that comment and your intention to use a Q-bot at Six Flags, you're turning into a regular Gonch!


Wednesday, December 22, 2010 7:08 PM

Not saying it's evil at all... That's the type of business Q is in. I just have a problem with Q saying they have long-term plans with regard to CF, which they repeatedly have, when the evidence is pretty clear they don't.

Thursday, December 23, 2010 1:17 AM

Buckeyes, first Raynor appointed nobody to anything.
Second, please list what the lawsuits that Q filed were, then tell us why you disagree with them.

Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:09 PM

Appointed, placed on, hand-selected.... Take your pick. Whatever your choice of wording, after Raynor turned down a position on the Board himself, he picked these two "exceptionally well-qualified and completely independent" directors and now they are turning against him.

I'm not arguing whether I agree or disagree with any lawsuit that Q has filed. I'm just stating that past history and current happenings indicate they prefer to conduct business through litigation. I'm just not sure that's the most effective method in this situation.

Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:23 PM

Hmm...I am not entirely certain that Q/Raynor actually got to pick the two who ended up on the Board. If my memory is right they got to make a list of recommendations and from that the Board made a decision. So, it stands to reason that those two aren't exactly in Raynor's pocket.

Still though, I'm not sure I can take seriously any recommendation by this Board. They are acting as if they have great reason to be trusted and I think it is the contrary. Allowing Kinzel to do what he has is reason enough to not place a lot of weight on what they are recommending.


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC