------_=_NextPart_001_01BE82C5.C8813352
Content-Type: text/plain
I generally do not reply to the remarks put on the web, however I feel
compelled in this case.
I don't believe that this is a case of a "smothering parent." The board
took into consideration both of the offers by CyberEdu, they hired an
outside firm to evaluate the fair value of Pogo's stock both without and
with the pending deal with Scholars, and in both cases $35 was at the low
end of what the stock's actual value is even if it was higher than the
present market price.
It is well within the boards discretion and fiduciary duty to reject
CyberEdu's offer, and I believe that if they did not, knowing that there
stock was actually worth more, would be working a greater harm against the
stockholders.
Christian D. Lofaro
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephanie Thimodo [SMTP:sthimodo@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 3:42 PM
> To: vcc@lclark.edu
> Subject: case 9
>
> This case is based on a power struggle between the directors and the
> shareholders. The board has no right to tell the direcctors that they
> are incapable of making decisions regarding their own financial future
>
> The tender offer should've been submitted to the shareholders to vote
> on because they are quite capable of making a decision regarding
> their own future without the smothering parent. Also the directors
> rejection of the $35 offer based on Pogo's presence in a deal with the
> defendant corporation shows poor investigation of fairness of the
> offer by the directors. Therefore this case belongs to the Plaintiffs
>
> stephanie
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------_=_NextPart_001_01BE82C5.C8813352
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
I generally do not = reply to the remarks put on the web, however I feel compelled in this = case.
I don't believe that = this is a case of a "smothering parent." The board took = into consideration both of the offers by CyberEdu, they hired an = outside firm to evaluate the fair value of Pogo's stock both without = and with the pending deal with Scholars, and in both cases $35 was at = the low end of what the stock's actual value is even if it was higher = than the present market price.
It is well within = the boards discretion and fiduciary duty to reject CyberEdu's offer, = and I believe that if they did not, knowing that there stock was = actually worth more, would be working a greater harm against the = stockholders.
Christian D. = Lofaro
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Thimodo =
[SMTP:sthimodo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 3:42 PM
To: vcc@lclark.edu
Subject: =
case 9
This case is based =
on a power struggle between the directors and the
shareholders. =
The board has no right to tell the direcctors that they
are incapable of =
making decisions regarding their own financial future
The tender offer =
should've been submitted to the shareholders to vote
on because they are =
quite capable of making a decision regarding
their own future =
without the smothering parent. Also the directors
rejection of the =
$35 offer based on Pogo's presence in a deal with the
defendant =
corporation shows poor investigation of fairness of the
offer by the =
directors. Therefore this case belongs to the Plaintiffs
stephanie
_________________________________________________________=
______
Get Free Email and =
Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com