4 ms·

This whole thread is true consistent statements that differ only in emphasis.

by nmca 1y ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> differ only in emphasis The commenter you are responding to is explicitly intending to place more emphasis on the reason why the lawsuit failed. That is why they used the phrase “burying the lede” in their initial comment.
- srveale 1y ago
  True!
  - glenstein 1y ago
    Hold on, I feel like everyone's missing that theres a real argument here. I think the key point was: >They are just judging if anything reaches the point where shareholders were legally harmed, which still gives a lot of gray area to the acquiring company. This distinguishes the lawsuit failing from the idea that a fair price was paid. The competing contentions are (a) fair price vs (b) unfair but beneath threshold of legally punishable harm.
    - michaelmrose 1y ago
      (c) no fair price can possibly be determined but the burden of proof lies with the claimant (d) a court has no idea what a fair price would look like but made a finding of fact based on expert testimony despite being poorly situated to evaluate it
      - fedestair 1y ago
        (e) the court in question answers to Delaware which is in the business of siding with any company that incorporates there.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      Note that this is a civil suit, so the concept of a “threshold of legally punishable harm” doesn’t apply. There’s no “punishment,” and the plaintiff doesn’t need to meet the high standards (proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) for imposing a punishment. Under Delaware law, there’s two standards for evaluating this kind of claim. When there is no conflict of interest, the court applies the “business judgment rule,” which is similar to what you seem to be thinking—it gives corporate officers wide latitude. But when there is a conflict of interest, the court applies the “entire fairness” standard, which requires both fair dealing and a fair price. And a fair price means what it sounds like—it’s what an objective businessman would consider a fair price under the circumstances. It doesn’t need to be the best price, but it must be within the range of fair. And to establish a fair price, the court relies on evidence from financial valuation experts. It’s a rigorous standard that’s hard to meet.
      - kelnos 1y ago
        > And to establish a fair price, the court relies on evidence from financial valuation experts. I generally find expert testimony to be suspect. Anyone can be trotted forward as an expert, rattle off their credentials, and say whatever they feel like saying, depending on who is paying them to testify. And financial valuation is not a science; there is of course plenty of math involved that takes into account hard, objective numbers, but a good chunk of it is opinion, too, as no one an know the future. Having said that, the Delaware Chancery Court of course has more experience in these matters than any other state's courts, so I am of the opinion that they're less likely to be duped by "experts", but sill... it can and does happen.
        ethbr1 1y ago
        The way to improved expert testimony would be to tie it to professional licensure in a stricter-than-practice way. Ofc, that wouldn't help for software... because no licensure.
        inetknght 1y ago
        I'm of the opinion that software should have licensure, given the degrading quality of software.
SilasX 1y ago
That’s generous. One party is stubbornly missing that the Delaware court’s ruling is weak evidence of a proper valuation having been done, but wants to parrot an irrelevant textbook understanding that obfuscates that conclusion.

This whole thread is true consistent statements that differ only in emphasis.

by nmca 1y ago

This whole thread is true consistent statements that differ only in emphasis.

> differ only in emphasis The commenter you are responding to is explicitly intending to place more emphasis on the reason why the lawsuit failed. That is why they used the phrase “burying the lede” in their initial comment.

srveale 1y ago
True!
- glenstein 1y ago
  Hold on, I feel like everyone's missing that theres a real argument here. I think the key point was: >They are just judging if anything reaches the point where shareholders were legally harmed, which still gives a lot of gray area to the acquiring company. This distinguishes the lawsuit failing from the idea that a fair price was paid. The competing contentions are (a) fair price vs (b) unfair but beneath threshold of legally punishable harm.
  - michaelmrose 1y ago
    (c) no fair price can possibly be determined but the burden of proof lies with the claimant (d) a court has no idea what a fair price would look like but made a finding of fact based on expert testimony despite being poorly situated to evaluate it
    - fedestair 1y ago
      (e) the court in question answers to Delaware which is in the business of siding with any company that incorporates there.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    Note that this is a civil suit, so the concept of a “threshold of legally punishable harm” doesn’t apply. There’s no “punishment,” and the plaintiff doesn’t need to meet the high standards (proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) for imposing a punishment. Under Delaware law, there’s two standards for evaluating this kind of claim. When there is no conflict of interest, the court applies the “business judgment rule,” which is similar to what you seem to be thinking—it gives corporate officers wide latitude. But when there is a conflict of interest, the court applies the “entire fairness” standard, which requires both fair dealing and a fair price. And a fair price means what it sounds like—it’s what an objective businessman would consider a fair price under the circumstances. It doesn’t need to be the best price, but it must be within the range of fair. And to establish a fair price, the court relies on evidence from financial valuation experts. It’s a rigorous standard that’s hard to meet.
    - kelnos 1y ago
      > And to establish a fair price, the court relies on evidence from financial valuation experts. I generally find expert testimony to be suspect. Anyone can be trotted forward as an expert, rattle off their credentials, and say whatever they feel like saying, depending on who is paying them to testify. And financial valuation is not a science; there is of course plenty of math involved that takes into account hard, objective numbers, but a good chunk of it is opinion, too, as no one an know the future. Having said that, the Delaware Chancery Court of course has more experience in these matters than any other state's courts, so I am of the opinion that they're less likely to be duped by "experts", but sill... it can and does happen.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        The way to improved expert testimony would be to tie it to professional licensure in a stricter-than-practice way. Ofc, that wouldn't help for software... because no licensure.
        inetknght 1y ago
        I'm of the opinion that software should have licensure, given the degrading quality of software.

SilasX 1y ago

That’s generous. One party is stubbornly missing that the Delaware court’s ruling is weak evidence of a proper valuation having been done, but wants to parrot an irrelevant textbook understanding that obfuscates that conclusion.