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.

Biotech / Medical : FPA Medical Management - FPAMQ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ccportfolio who wrote (979)	7/22/1998 3:44:00 AM
From: Ben Beale	Respond to of 1110

Lynndal, Probably wise... As an aside, am I the only one who is bothered by the announcement that existing equity owners' interest have been cancelled? A class I took once mentioned something about the "fiduciary duty" corporate managers have to shareholders (owners). I guess I was out the day they explained how managers can rid themselves of pesky owners by "cancelling" them... Seriously, I'm not sure how, by the stoke of a pen, a hireling can do this sort of thing (while at the same time, issuing himself and a few of his very closest creditors 28 million out of 40 million new shares). Someone versed in securities law jump in here.... How would one extinguish another's ownership via a press release? Would it be unreasonable to ask for a copy of the legal opinion that sanctioned this move, just for sake of argument? If this cancellation thing is lawful, why don't more companies jump on the bandwagon? Wouldn't the managers of GM, IBM, Lockheed, etc. be much better off if they cancelled the ownership of the shareholders and issued themselves a new class of stock? r/s Ben