Re:Remembering my father
by vijayr02 on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @03:49AM
(#24490463)
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.
Re:Remembering my father
by whizzter on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @05:26AM
(#24490973)
Probably not, if BG sr was able to scare of the other bidder with a short conversation there was probably legal grounds that made the other bid problematic in some way.
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.