3 ms·
> The common stock holders' interests were poorly represented in the price negotiation. You're mistaken here. Your point rests on there being a possibility tha
by tvladeck 11y ago
> The common stock holders' interests were poorly represented in the price negotiation.
You're mistaken here. Your point rests on there being a possibility that Blackberry paid the same amount for the company (the valuation), but common stock holders got more (the waterfall). This was not possible.
- jameshart 11y agoBut the people negotiating the deal with Blackberry knew how the waterfall would shake out. They elected to agree to a price where the share of the purchase price distributed across common stockholders left many employees in a bad place. That was a choice. As was structuring the ownership of the company, and the compensation offers to their employees, in that way in the first place.
- tvladeck 11y agoRight, but we have to assume that Good could not have gotten a better price from Blackberry. The alternative was even worse from the common shareholders - a price of $0 for their shares. They also could not have changed the waterfall. So I'm not sure what your point is, really