Z,
<<And being paid greenmail would then be prima facie evidence that the raiders were right!>>
Well, of course to some extent, but it was also the general market, which are you probably know was extremely depressed then. Just as CEOs today don't deserve full credit for their booming stock prices (though they are quick enough to take that credit, as well as exhorbitant pay raises,bonuses and options), the CEOS then didn't deserve full blame for languishing stock prices (though they extraordinarily slow to take any blame at all, even if justified).
<<By the way, no conceivable justification for paying greenmail to preserve your own bid to do a takeover. Unless someone can explain how, let's put this idea to rest.>>
Frankly, I can see no conceivable justification for this entire takeover, from a shareholder's point of view. It reeks from start to finish, no matter how many times Steve Luzco repeats, "It's a hellavu deal." The SEC should investigate it and invalidate it and the breakup fee, and these people should be out on the street for violating their fiduciary duty to stockholders. And subject to some very stiff fines; perhaps the $400million breakup fee would be just. IMHO. |
