4 ms·

A long time ago, in my Fortune 250, there were rumors flying about a merger with another company. So much so, that the CEO issued a company-wide email that, no,

A long time ago, in my Fortune 250, there were rumors flying about a merger with another company. So much so, that the CEO issued a company-wide email that, no, they "were not entertaining any credible offers at the time." I thought that was a weasely way of saying "no," but I was more naive then, and believed him. A month later, they announced that were "merging" with another Fortune 250. That company sold our company off, piece by piece, in a classic raid to prop up their failing business, and then divested the last, biggest piece as private equity. Our CEO was promised the merged CEO position within 2 years. They pulled the ripcord on his golden parachute 1 year into it. He got $19M for the selling out the company, and $15M more for f*cking off, and THEN had the audacity to walk into the old HQ and cry about it. His bio at IU's "notable alumni" says he "retired." Screw him. It was a great company to have worked for, which had lasted over 100 years, and it was gone in 3 years. It's been 20 years now, and I'm still mad about it. He says he regrets it (https://web.archive.org/web/20150726032123/https://www.ibj.com/articles/54056-hunt-a-mea-culpa-over-sale-of-arvin-industries https://web.archive.org/web/20150726032123/https://www.ibj.c...), but when a board throws tens or hundreds of millions at someone, they usually take the deal, and act accordingly.

mandeepj 4y ago
> but when a board throws tens or hundreds of millions at someone, they usually take the deal, and act accordingly. Board also has to act in favor of what's better financially for the company. If that CEO did not have agree for merger, they'd have fired him. At least, he'd have dignity if he choose that and your respect as well, but that does not have paid his bills. I'm not sidelining with anyone.
- citizenkeen 4y ago
  But they didn't have to lie about it.
  - bink 4y ago
    They're in a pretty tough position if they're negotiating a merger/purchase. Don't those talks usually include an agreement not to disclose them? Something about not wanting it to be used to solicit competing offers? If they're in the middle of talks and someone blabs and an employee asks about it, they effectively either have to blow up the deal, lie, or say "I can't talk about it" (which would be seen as a yes anyways).
  - Zobat 4y ago
    There's every possibility that they had to lie about it. The rules are strict about how and when you can release information that can or will affect the value (or valuation) of the company. You being told "in advance" that a company will be letting people go gives you "inside information" and the opportunity to buy or sell your shares before everybody else knows about it. So while it seems unethical to lie to your face telling the truth might be illegal.
    - HFguy 4y ago
      They are not legally obligated to lie. They are legally obligated to not say certain things. Which is different. So, they should just say, that, as always, it is a possibility. Which is both true and doesn’t provide info they shouldn’t.
      - jcelerier 4y ago
        > So, they should just say, that, as always, it is a possibility. Which is both true and doesn’t provide info they shouldn’t. Is there anyone on earth who would not interpret "it is a possibility" as "pack your bags" ?
        handoflixue 4y ago
        "We're legally obliged not to talk about that topic" seems pretty safe, especially if you use it consistently. The more it gets used, the less people can infer anything useful from it, so it's also a valuable norm to encourage.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

mandeepj 4y ago

> but when a board throws tens or hundreds of millions at someone, they usually take the deal, and act accordingly. Board also has to act in favor of what's better financially for the company. If that CEO did not have agree for merger, they'd have fired him. At least, he'd have dignity if he choose that and your respect as well, but that does not have paid his bills. I'm not sidelining with anyone.

citizenkeen 4y ago
But they didn't have to lie about it.
- bink 4y ago
  They're in a pretty tough position if they're negotiating a merger/purchase. Don't those talks usually include an agreement not to disclose them? Something about not wanting it to be used to solicit competing offers? If they're in the middle of talks and someone blabs and an employee asks about it, they effectively either have to blow up the deal, lie, or say "I can't talk about it" (which would be seen as a yes anyways).
- Zobat 4y ago
  There's every possibility that they had to lie about it. The rules are strict about how and when you can release information that can or will affect the value (or valuation) of the company. You being told "in advance" that a company will be letting people go gives you "inside information" and the opportunity to buy or sell your shares before everybody else knows about it. So while it seems unethical to lie to your face telling the truth might be illegal.
  - HFguy 4y ago
    They are not legally obligated to lie. They are legally obligated to not say certain things. Which is different. So, they should just say, that, as always, it is a possibility. Which is both true and doesn’t provide info they shouldn’t.
    - jcelerier 4y ago
      > So, they should just say, that, as always, it is a possibility. Which is both true and doesn’t provide info they shouldn’t. Is there anyone on earth who would not interpret "it is a possibility" as "pack your bags" ?
      - handoflixue 4y ago
        "We're legally obliged not to talk about that topic" seems pretty safe, especially if you use it consistently. The more it gets used, the less people can infer anything useful from it, so it's also a valuable norm to encourage.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]