Dell buy-out latest: Big Mike makes shareholders an offer they can't refuse

Dell has once more put off the vote on whether company founder Big Mike can buy out the PC-making titan - after he and his biz partner Silver Lake Partners slightly upped their offer to shareholders and demanded a change to the voting rules. The computer giant's special board committee postponed the stockholder vote on Mikey …

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else

wish that somebody would slap ICahn? I mean the guy sounds like a little bitch.

"Oh he's only offering you that much? Well I think the company is worth four times that amount and I'm holding out until he ups his offer. Can I match his offer? Well I don't have the money right now, but I'm sure I can get it if you vote against him"

He's like a little kid crying because Mikey has a bigger portion of chips than he does, even though they're the exact same size. ( a bit like Veruca Salt )

[ElReg!comments!Pierre]

Re: Does anyone else

I certainly do.

"Activist investor" my ass, the guy's built a fortune gutting and dismembering companies for a quick buck, shafting both employees and other shareholders in the process. And crying like a little bitch when someone resists the shafting, apparently. Pond scum, barely above patent lawyers and credit card fraudster, if at all.

[Daniel B.]

Re: Does anyone else

This does seem to be Icahn's Waterloo, and boy oh boy do I want to see him go down!

[Tom 13]

Re: Does anyone else

Nah, the person doing the slapping might catch something, even if he/she was wearing surgical gloves.

I'd prefer something longer range and possibly a bit more painful.

[Mage]

Oh dear

I'm going to run out of popcorn.

Keep up the the good work El Reg.

[Reg T.]

In a Case

like this, surely the stockholders can count on SEC regulators to champion the interests of the stockholders.

One notes that Icahn is a mere toddler when compared to the tag team of Mikey and Intel.

[Ace Rimmer]

I Ca(h)n't believe it...

"The Special Committee has now been asked to GUT this provision to effectively render it meaningless"

What's meaningless is the decision being weighted in favour of those who don't vote. While there may be good reason for a few of them not being able to vote, the majority who don't vote don't care enough to, and therefore they are happy to go along with whatever decision the people who DO vote, vote for. Discounting the people who don't vote as irrelevant is the ONLY fair way to assess what those who actually have an opinion on the matter want. To paraphrase Richad Prior, Icahn is a dick, and not even a hard on.

[Tom 13]

Re: I Ca(h)n't believe it...

I see the point Mike was making with the request. Were I writing the rules from the outset I think they are the way I would write them.

But the flip side is that Mike got to write the rules at the time they went public and he chose to write them the way he did, probably to protect the company from hostile takeovers. And it does bother me to change them in the middle of the game. It bothers me even more to change them in the last 10 minutes of the final quarter. So I think Mike should have to win the vote under the existing rules.