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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Canadian Oil & Gas Companies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VisionsOfSugarplums who wrote (6124)	2/28/1999 6:59:00 PM
From: Serge Collins	Respond to of 24927

About REL: I agree with the comments made in the two previous posts, but I would add one caveat that is often overlooked in takeovers. There are some takeovers that are not in shareholders' interests, although they are in management's interest. This occurs when management strikes a backroom deal with an acquiror in order to protect its own self-interests (like a position with the acquiring firm) or some other benefit that does not accrue to other shareholders. This happens in all industries but is prevalent in the oil patch. You'd be surprised how many managements would turn down a better deal and accept a lesser one if there are goodies in it for them. So much for seeking shareholder value. Management pays lip service to shareholder value, but let's face it, the only shareholders that matter to them is -- themselves. It's the same principle behind poison pills, they actually call them shareholders' rights plans, but these things are brought in to protect the company management and directors from losing their perks through a takeover. I'm not saying this happened here, but I wouldn't rule it out. The sad thing is you will probably never know if this occurred or not.