This whole article is a little misleading. It makes it sound as if anyone who happened to own Dell stock at the time of the buyout could have sued to get some

This whole article is a little misleading. It makes it sound as if anyone who happened to own Dell stock at the time of the buyout could have sued to get some extra cash. But only in the footnotes does it mention this: >To be eligible for the court-ordered price bump, investors must have voted against the transaction. Clearly, everyone who owned Dell stock at the time thought it was worth more than $9.35. That's why they held the stock in the first place! Those who thought the company was worth much more (say, $18 per share), presumably voted against the transaction. They were understandably pissed when the transaction succeeded anyway, so they sued. But those who voted in favor of the transaction didn't get an extra penny -- they agreed on a price, and that's what they got. On a related note, here's an interesting game theory tangent: If you think the buyout offer is a great deal, should you vote for it? After all, if you're confident the deal is going to succeed even without your votes, maybe you should vote against it -- to preserve your option to sue for even more money. But if everyone thinks like that, then the deal won't go through at all...