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?