Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Seagate Technology - Fundamentals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ausdauer who wrote (1826)	5/15/2000 2:25:00 PM
From: Mark Madden	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1989

IMHO it will be difficult for SEG to pay greenmail. SEG is claiming that giving the shareholders $5 for all the operating business and securities (other than VRTS) is the best deal for the shareholders. Under these circumstances, can they pay someone off that wants to give the shareholders a better deal? If they do, won?t they be proving they are not acting in the shareholders best interest to the judges considering their 22 lawsuits? Companies that pay greenmail can usually claim the greenmail is in the long-term best interest for the shareholders. SEG can not say they are interested in the long-term best interest of the shareholders. Also, it is my understanding the VRTS deal said that VRTS would get all the assets including the money from the sale of the SEG operating business and other holdings for the $5 it would pay the shareholders. Why would VRTS want to approve the spending for greenmail to assure they do not get more for the operating business? VRTS benefits if they get more for the operating business. VRTS loses value if the management spends money for greenmail. It would seem SEG would be limited to expenditures in it?s operating budget until the deal is closed. However, I do not think VRTS cares if they get assets like SanDisk stock or cash for its sale. Regards, Mark