@nothings I had the same response. How can that be true? And if true, how can that be legal?
-
-
Replying to @renderwonk
@renderwonk I suspect you could form a new company for a single acquisition and achieve the same results in an obviously legal way.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@nothings@renderwonk Sean, it usually _does_ involve a new company in this fashion, as far as I know. See http://macabacus.com/valuation/lbo/overview …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk But then somehow the acquirer manages to pull money out of that dummy corp to original without exposing self to suit?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@nothings@renderwonk They don't have to do anything fancy. The "shareholders" just vote to pay distributions to the parent company.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk Well, legally, a hostile takeover is a risk you take by not keeping 51% of ownership, and that's all there is to say.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori so if someone owns 51% of a company, they can legally give themselves 100% of the assets?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @renderwonk
@renderwonk It depends on the share types, but no, they may have to _also_ pay out to the minority holders. But it's share-proportional.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk Plus the article doesn't say that minority shareholders were screwed--it focuses on employees who were screwed.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@nothings @renderwonk And to be clear, this is just one of the many things that is wrong with "public" companies. That list is fucking huge.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.