I don't think that's the point that nuclearnice1 is making. The focus is not on the other bidder (who may or may not have gone on to make a fortune). The poin

I don't think that's the point that nuclearnice1 is making. The focus is not on the other bidder (who may or may not have gone on to make a fortune). The point is the seller could have gotten more than what Schulz paid for the chain. If this was a corporate m&a situation and a second bidder arose at a higher price, the board has a fiduciary duty to consider that offer.