Personally I think the legal system in the US is broken, and this is a good example. In a sane country you would oust the board of directors if you didn't agree with them. In the US you sue.<p>In cases of fraud, deception, etc. suing is of course the right thing to do. But in this case the board of Yahoo has chosen to reject the offer from Microsoft based on their belief that the bid was too low. Where exactly is the wrongdoing in that? You can of course disagree, in which case you should take it up on the next shareholders meeting, and vote for removal of the board.<p>But I have a hard time seeing the justification in suing a board for having an opinion on the valuation of the company. I thought that was what they were paid to do...
This scenario highlights exactly why I don't buy Google's 'no evil' claim. A public company exists for one and only one reason - to maximize shareholder value. In other words, to increase the wealth of random people that nobody in the company knows.<p>There is only one reason to take a company public - to make money. An entrepreneur claiming to go public for any other reason is either naive or lying.
There are actually two separate suits. I've put them up on Scribd:<p>Feb 11 Suit
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/full/2161181?access_key=key-2mavl5upyvb75glwlr9s" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/full/2161181?access_key=key-2mavl5upyv...</a><p>Feb 21 Suit
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/full/2161188?access_key=key-1356w5cvyfimxv16lee9" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/full/2161188?access_key=key-1356w5cvyf...</a>
I wonder why the antitrust division of the DOJ is letting Microsoft buy Yahoo. I don't care either way, but I wonder why there isn't more of this kind of debate on the subject.