Regulators Examining Insurers’ Cyber Security Readiness
Immigrant Driver’s Licenses Signed in Colorado
E&O Insights: Why Personal Umbrellas Generate Claims
10 Things to Know About Entertainment, Sports & Special Events
Washington Public Employee Fired Over Fruit Pie Suing City
4 Strategies to Make Producer Lifecycle Management a Priority
Motorcycle Injuries Rise After Helmet Laws Weakened: Study
Making the Most of Mediation, Part 2Free Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
How is a 70% premium undervaluing the product? I’m sure somewhere in a mutual fund I own some Yahoo, and I would love to get a 70% return on my investment. This sounds fishy.
weak, definately not, because if you look at the pricing. they were offering that much more….i think a few dollars more @share is not truly an issue. $33 vs $37. truly i don’t think that $4 would have hurt the pocket book. but, if i read the article, it’s the owner that does not want to sell to them. as a owner, it’s his business, and does not have to justify why he decided not to go for it.
He’s just the founder. It’s a publicly traded company so is owned by the shareholders. The board has a duty to maximize value to the shareholders and by not selling when the shareholders could have reaped a massive premium on their profits the board very well may have breached that duty. Whether the founder wants to sell to Microsoft, to somebody else, or stay independant is of no concern. Once he went public he lost the right to make those decisions on his own.