Now, are
there all kinds of nit-picky details about the process? I
bet so. Are there enough little tiny-print unknown rules
about the grant of proxies that the directors can vote
proxied against the wishes of the owner, and make it stand
up in court?

Yes, obviously.


Dave wrote:
Not at all "obviously." Not true in fact.

Well, here's where we part ways.

While it is not capable of being proven (and certainly
*never* to your satisfaction) that the holders of majority
shares of HP did not want the Compaq buy-out, it was made
obvious in several venues. The directors circumvented the
will of the stockholders. Whatever method of trickery they
employed is not important, nor does the courts sanction make
it right... that only makes it legal.

It is self-evident that a majority of Hewlett-Packard stock
holders did *not* want to buy Compaq, because shortly after
it happened, the ratio of HP stock for sale to HP stock buy
orders plummeted. Coincidentally, so did the value of the
stock... funny how that works. Even after a few years of
"recovery" it's still less than half what it was.

So, when you're saying that it's impossible that the
majority shareholders voted against... or would have voted
against, had their votes been actually counted... the Compaq
buy-out, you're saying that the laws of supply & demand has
been temporarily suspended in this instance. Maybe the court
approved that too? I mean, doesn't water flow up hill if
your ideology demands that it do so?

DSK