Slashdot Mirror
Shareholders Sue Novell Board
dgharmon writes "If you thought the deal smelled funny back in 2011 when Novell sold itself to Attachmate and its patents to a Microsoft consortium, you are not alone. Some shareholders sued. Specifically, they claim that Novell favored Attachmate over other bidders, especially a 'Party C', and the judge, under Delaware's reasonable 'conceivability' standard, denied summary judgement with respect to the board and decided there will need to be a trial."
I would hope that sometimes the bad guys don't win. Maybe this time, since the bad guys have no money left to use for a defense, we might see some justice.
"...and the judge, under Delaware's reasonable 'conceivability' standard," fucked them real good.
Impregnated with justice, the shareholders expect tiny lawyers to spring from their chests any day now. Such is the life cycle of the North American Tailless Serpent.
From their chests? Is that what you call yours?
Really? Not only have you've never seen Alien, but you don't even know about one of the most memorable scenes in movie history?
I don't know if you really want that. Management can be big douchebags, but they're often big douchebags on behalf of the shareholders who want their stock to return money to them.
I know of one company that I have had dealings with that nearly sold itself to a competitor with full knowledge that the competitor would take their customers and lay everyone off shortly after. This was because the shareholders wanted their money back and were tired of waiting, so they wanted the liquidity back, even though the company had finally reached profitability.
Mind you, given how long it took for the company to become profitable, and the lackluster share price, I was not entirely appalled at the action, but shareholders are not your friends, or even the friends of good business practices, necessarily. Much of it depends on the shareholder personally and what their stake in the company is.
But that's how it should be.
If I run a corner store and decide that I'm not making enough money for it to be worthwhile then selling my corner store for as much as I can even if that buyer is going to sack the employees, knock down the building, and build a car park. That's my choice. Whether wanting to be able to afford to retire makes me an asshole or not is unrelated to the fact that being an jerk should be my choice.
Shareholders in larger company are the same - if they want to exit and get as much money as they can for the business that's their choice.
Which is precisely why I am appalled that banks are allowed to be publicly traded companies. If you use a bank to store your money you are not a customer you are the product.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
That is definitely their choice, and their right. However, I'm not entirely convinced that is the best way to do business.
More to the point, although I'm generally not as down on capitalism as my lefty friends, I do recognize that when someone states that we (in the sense of "the public") might want more shareholder suits, that statement should not be made so broadly. Well-run companies that are profitable and management who runs the company for long term stability and profitability have been ousted by shareholders who want to simply pillage customer relationships and fire sale the assets. One tool in use for that is the minority shareholder lawsuit.
I expect Nokia's shareholders (and maybe the Finnish government) to sue Elop and friends.
No sig for the moment.
Last time I checked, the government owned something like 2% share of Nokia.That definitely puts it in the top 50 (probably even top 20) shareholders but aside from that, the government has very little to do with the company.
If you're a shareholder in Novell after 1998 or so, you pretty much deserve whatever comes. Where else do they have their money, Netscape and AOL? Honestly.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.