|
|
#11
10-27-2006, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HARRAH\'S SUED
The SEC does not handle antitrust issues, it's the FTC.
|
|
#13
10-30-2006, 11:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HARRAH\'S SUED
[ QUOTE ]
I stand corrected.... The FTC would investigate the purchase for Anti-trust, SEC would investigate for how the offer was handled. Sorry. [/ QUOTE ] Why are you correcting people if you don't know WTF you are talking about?
|
|
#14
10-30-2006, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HARRAH\'S SUED
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you correcting people if you don't know WTF you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] Because I REALLY REALLY thought I was right, but It turns out I was REALLY REALLY wrong, and when I found out I did what I thought was right. I hope this answers your questions.
|
|
#15
11-02-2006, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HARRAH\'S SUED
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Sure, there are probably regulatory approvals needed for this deal (although maybe moreso from the state gambling officials). No, that doesn't mean the government will be investigating whether the shareholders are getting a fair price, or whether it's a disguised management buyout. That's not the government's job to check out. Yes, these guys are looking for more money. But that's the only correct thing you said. They could very well be right, and they could save all of the shareholders from getting screwed over. [/ QUOTE ] I do know exactly what I am 'talking' about when it comes to this topic, thank you. The issue I responded to was related to the the faces behind the company attempting to buyout Harrahs. I don't want or expect government agencies to be involved in whether the shareholders get a fair deal. But what you and a few others who only seem to skim messages looking for keywords instead of reading substance missed, is that YES government agencies are responsible for looking into who the faces are behind an entity looking to buy a publicly traded gaming company. Operative word there is GAMING. Doubt that? Skim through the Nevada Gaming Control Board website. Their job includes determing who is doing the buyout and believe me, if it is a "disguised management buyout," that will come out. These champions of the shareholders are jumping the gun because they want the price inflated. That is fine, its capitalism and God bless them. But it is a use of the court system that should not be tolerated.
|
|
#16
11-02-2006, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HARRAH\'S SUED
So "how many agencies" are scrutinizing this deal, as you said in your original post? It's sounding like the answer is one.
If I were a major shareholders, and I had a lot of money on the line, I wouldn't be counting on the regulators to take care of my money for me. Nor would a judge expect me to.
|
|
#17
11-03-2006, 09:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HARRAH\'S SUED
Actually, the SEC might be investigating the offer, but for a slightly different reason. It seems there was a lot of what looked like insider trading for the three days prior to Harrah's announcement of the offer.
http://www.boston.com/business/artic...hs_before_bid/ One of the partners of Texas Pacific Group had bought Harrah's properties in the past when he was president and COO of Colony Capital. They were the group that picked up properties in Altantic City, Tunica, and East Chicago. A short piece about the deal and what it could mean to poker: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/1...-it-happen.htm
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
