 | | Re: Not looking good for eToys... —Jeff Shiner
|
| | | (...) Actually I suspect that a conventional retailer or white knight could NOT buy eToys. Under Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law they are forbidden to engage in a business combination with an interested stockholder for a period (...) (24 years ago, 30-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Not looking good for eToys... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) That's a hostile takeover defense and Delaware law is friendly to corporations so I doubt this would apply to a friendly (white knight) takeover... Consult your M&A guy if you're thinking of buying them, don't take MY advice... ++Lar (24 years ago, 31-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not looking good for eToys... —Jeff Shiner
|
| | | | (...) Here is an associated snipper from one of eToys legal filings: "IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR A THIRD PARTY TO ACQUIRE US EVEN IF DOING SO WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO OUR SECURITYHOLDERS. Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of (...) (24 years ago, 31-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not looking good for eToys... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) you're quoting from is bluesky boilerplate that is in hundreds of 10Ks and 8Ks... means nothing. Of course a hostile takeover may be beneficial to security holders. Almost any takeover is beneficial to stockholders, especially when we're (...) (24 years ago, 31-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| | | | |
