|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 08:18 AM EST |
they gain the same thing as they did making the patent deal with M$ a couple
years back... not sure who can tell what's that though[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 12:25 PM EST |
It could be possible that the board owns stock in the other
companies and benefit that way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 01:25 PM EST |
It doesn't hurt to sack a BoD now and then for incompetence.
Shouldn't need to make a Federal case out of it tho'.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 08 2013 @ 04:24 AM EST |
| Or exposure of the actual contents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 08 2013 @ 05:07 PM EST |
Takeover deals are usually complicated, and so are corporate
structures, so it's hard to generalize, but here are just a
few possibilities:
- Board members do not personally own significant stock in
the company. In this case they have no direct incentive to
look out for shareholders' interests.
- Board members own a different *class* of stock than most
other stockholders, giving them different results in the
event of a merger. This gives them different incentives in
terms of timing, cash deals vs stock, etc.
- Board members are officers of the company. They may have
separate incentives (e.g. acceleration of stock options) to
go forward with a deal even if it isn't a great one. They
simply may not care about a small difference between deals.
Then there's the more cynical possibilities:
-Board members are lazy. After years of being paid (though
some hardly get anything) for doing almost nothing, they'd
rather not look at more offers than they have to.
-Board members are nervous about not-yet-announced
financial results (or hints of internal fraud) and will take
whatever deal they think will close fastest.
-Board members are getting kickbacks from one of the
suitors. You're not likely to find direct evidence of this,
of course, but it's stupid to think it doesn't happen. The
only evidence would be if the board makes an inexplicable
choice. That's basically the allegation here. If the board
can just give a decent business reason, they're off the
hook.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
