2 ms·

Others are answering this with more specifics, but there's a first principles answer here too: not without facing a shareholder lawsuit for the difference. The

by ajross 3y ago

Others are answering this with more specifics, but there's a first principles answer here too: not without facing a shareholder lawsuit for the difference. The whole idea behind owning stock in the company is that the company acts to maximize the value of that stock on your behalf. So if the ownership of the company (Apple Computer, in this case) takes a deliberate act that fails to honor the shareholder compact (taking a huge haircut on a patent license), then you sue them because they should have gotten you more.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
If Apple ever bought Masimo it would be either merged into Apple or operate as a subsidiary.
- ajross 3y ago
  That doesn't obviate the rights of the other Masimo shareholders. Imagine Apple owes Masimo a $2B judgement. Then they buy the 50.1% of company for $500M and write off the debt to their subsidiary. The other 49.9% say, wait, we were owed $1B dollars in that settlement and all we got was $250M of AAPL stock! And they sue.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > That doesn't obviate the rights of the other Masimo shareholders It does if they willingly sell their shares to Apple > Then they buy the 50.1% of company for $500M and write off the debt to their subsidiary Well that would not be legal. They’d use their position as the majority shareholder to buy out everyone else and delist the company (of course they could still not sell, they’d just end up having shares in a private company)
    - ajross 3y ago
      > It does if they willingly sell their shares to Apple Why would they do that? That's literally just giving away money. I still think you're failing to understand the principle at work here. You can "control" a public company with a 50.1% share, that doesn't allow you to steal from the remaining shareholders. That's what shareholder lawsuits are about: the shareholders collectively feel that the company is not acting in the interests of its owners and sue. Now, sure, often this is abused. Often the suits are baseless and mostly just attempts by law firms to squeeze some dollars out of the process. But the actions described in this subthread are exactly why they are allowed in the first place. You can't do that.

by ajross 3y ago

ffgjgf1 3y ago

If Apple ever bought Masimo it would be either merged into Apple or operate as a subsidiary.

ajross 3y ago
That doesn't obviate the rights of the other Masimo shareholders. Imagine Apple owes Masimo a $2B judgement. Then they buy the 50.1% of company for $500M and write off the debt to their subsidiary. The other 49.9% say, wait, we were owed $1B dollars in that settlement and all we got was $250M of AAPL stock! And they sue.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > That doesn't obviate the rights of the other Masimo shareholders It does if they willingly sell their shares to Apple > Then they buy the 50.1% of company for $500M and write off the debt to their subsidiary Well that would not be legal. They’d use their position as the majority shareholder to buy out everyone else and delist the company (of course they could still not sell, they’d just end up having shares in a private company)
  - ajross 3y ago
    > It does if they willingly sell their shares to Apple Why would they do that? That's literally just giving away money. I still think you're failing to understand the principle at work here. You can "control" a public company with a 50.1% share, that doesn't allow you to steal from the remaining shareholders. That's what shareholder lawsuits are about: the shareholders collectively feel that the company is not acting in the interests of its owners and sue. Now, sure, often this is abused. Often the suits are baseless and mostly just attempts by law firms to squeeze some dollars out of the process. But the actions described in this subthread are exactly why they are allowed in the first place. You can't do that.