Dear rudedog: Thank you for updating me on your views on the merger over at the SUNW thread. If you shared them earlier with people, I did not see them [away over 6 months].
Last night I heard about Calpers' decision to vote against the merger on my car radio during an hourly business segment. Despite their HWP holdings being a tiny percentage of the total shares, there is great symbolic meaning in their announcement which could sway more undecided votes, in my opinion, than Walter's assaults or the ISS report. This now has me concerned about something I had not fully considered before.
First, if HWP shareholders vote down the merger on March 19, can the CPQ vote for the 20th be killed, with the results of our voting never made public?
Should HWP shareholders vote down the merger and CPQ shareholders vote against it, too--fine, no problem, both groups agree that a merger is not a good idea. For HWP shareholders to vote against, but CPQ shareholders (the next day) to approve the merger... I am concerned this would be very, very damaging to us. I would much rather not have the CPQ tallied and released should HPW shareholders vote against the merger than have our vote announced.
Last year I thought I had witnessed the messiest proxy battle possible in the First Union (FTU), Wachovia (WB), Sun Trust (STI) fiasco. STI's assault against the proposed FTU/WB merger was child's play compared to Wally's jihad. Although a vote against a merger by shareholders of the acquiring bank (FTU) was highly unlikely [after all, part of the deal was to get rid of that cursed name, "First Union," and go with Wachovia], there was a 3 day gap between the FTU and WB votes.
Regards,
Lynn |
