The Dell takeover valuation decision got overturned, which is quite reasonable to say the least.
However the valuation do-over was thought to be a solution is beyond me. The question of the case was "was Dell transparent in his direction for the company, and was the market process by which they auctioned off Dell fair and open?" Trying to rend some valuation of the company that no one was willing to pay and deciding 'that's the one' was weird.
Of course every group of stakeholders is going to have a different idea of what they're willing to pay for the company, that's why they had a bidding process. If the judge came up with something lower than what Silver Lake and Dell came up with, would the former shareholders have to give money back?
However the valuation do-over was thought to be a solution is beyond me. The question of the case was "was Dell transparent in his direction for the company, and was the market process by which they auctioned off Dell fair and open?" Trying to rend some valuation of the company that no one was willing to pay and deciding 'that's the one' was weird.
Of course every group of stakeholders is going to have a different idea of what they're willing to pay for the company, that's why they had a bidding process. If the judge came up with something lower than what Silver Lake and Dell came up with, would the former shareholders have to give money back?
Matt also unsurprisingly wrote about it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-15/appraisal...