SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: richardred who wrote (47969)5/15/2012 4:51:35 PM
From: NikhilJog  Read Replies (1) of 78427
 
Rich - thats an interesting theory and good thought process. I am not disagreeing. However, Have you taken a look at company bylaws and what kind of power it gives to the board of directors? Also, The CEO will make a lot of money if there is a change of control - DESPITE that, they did not sell.

So i agree - the question indeed is why! why did they not sell? However, will it bring litigation is a big question. And if there is heavy litigation, what are the possible outcomes? Coty is prob. not coming back. so as a shareholder, you lose either way.

Do they have a counter offer on the table? I think thats the question that is worth asking. I don;t think you should focus so much on the legal issues, but about why this happened? Am sure board must have thought about potential litigation......unless they go back to coty. If they do, I believe buffett being buffett, they might not get the same offer.Besides you cannot force them to sell, if they have a reason not to.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News