Why are abstained votes "no" votes? I assume a lot of shareholders don't feel that their vote matters much. I can understand how Icahn would be upset by changing that, but it doesn't seem fair to Dell, IMO. Thoughts?
Mike Dell and Silverlake,. in the interest of being as a fair as possible, made their initial proposal rmandating that shares not voted would be counted as "NO" votes. This protects MD and Silveralke from future litigation.
Hoiwever, it turns out sentiment for their generous $13.65 offer was not as positive as they had anticipated.
It is ironic that the "mandatory voting" provision ended up sabotaging this buyout proposal. Next year, if Mike Dell decides to present a new buyout offer, I expect the voting provision component will be different, that is abstaining shares will not be counted as "NO" votes.
Surprised you're still lingering here. Did your Hero M. Dell raise their bid or not? Hint, read the SEC filing before you try to lie.
Still spewing nonsense...SL & M. Dell are in a bind; they need to raise their bid--again--or lose the proxy come Friday. Just to keep the record straight, it will be the second time they raised their bid--against them self. Just laughing at you. How many times will you be wrong before this is over?
Loser...Way too funny. BTW, sure appreciate your contribution to my bank account.