The terms are almost 16 per cent less than Hortonworks' 52-week high of $26.22, the lawsuit claimed, adding it appeared that the company was "well-positioned for financial growth" – and so, presumably, the shareholders should be getting more bang for their buck.
The lawsuit will fall flat on its face.
First,Horton was not "well-positioned for financial growth".
Looking at their latest 10-Q, they were still burning money. They lost less money than a year earlier, but they were not financially stable and have yet to turn a profit.
Free clue... they were engaged in a partnership with IBM. IBM resold HDP into their customer base since IBM lacked a suitable option for an on-prem solution. If IBM didn't want them... who would?
Cloudera? Mike Olson sold 6 companies to Larry Ellison's Oracle. The joke was that he had Larry on speed dial if he wanted to sell Cloudera when he was CEO. So if not IBM, Oracle, who?
Its a very short list and outside of the merger, maybe Michael Dell? But would he want to jeopardize relationships w Cloudera and MapR?
There's more, but the bottom line, Horton was still sinking and the future was not bright.
Posted Anon, because I know more than I can say.