Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!newton2 From: newton2@ucbtopaz.UUCP Newsgroups: net.invest Subject: Re: take overs - (nf) Message-ID: <498@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Date: Mon, 18-Jun-84 01:37:16 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.498 Posted: Mon Jun 18 01:37:16 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Jun-84 01:02:34 EDT References: <242@ism780.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA Lines: 18 The *management* of Disney paid Steinberg (and his cohorts) to disgorge the stock he had accumulated; the were protecting themselves, not the company, from Steinberg's takeover. They clearly weren't helping the (public) stockholders, whose share price plummeted from ~$70 (the price Steinberg was paid) to <$50 overnight. Had Steinberg not been paid (with shareholders' money) to back off, he may possibly have completed his takeover, to the obvious advantage (short term at least) of the shareholders whose stock spurted in price. Now the company is several hundred $M pooer in cash, Steinberg's group owns options to strip Disney of its undeveloped assets (lots of raw land etc.) and the stock price is in the proverbial toilet. I make no judgment regarding the ethics of Steinberg's group, but it seems clear that the only thing Disney's officers "saved" by their "defense" was their control of a company owned by others (the shareholders); in doing so they may have poisoned their own well. This sort of thing is pretty commonplace. Remember the Bill and Mary Show at what used to be Bendix?