You are in the minority (as am I), but the funds will decide at what price this is purchased, not you or me. Most institutionals are in at a higher tax basis.
I suggested some possible collusion yesterday to help explain the depths of this move, and some winespirits guy stated that I was crazy to suggest it since there were criminal statutes that would prevent and deter such actions...right!
The successful candidate and from where he/she comes may shed some light on this, imo.
Thank you for your reply. Could you direct me to the criminal statute upon which you rely where a corporate insider colludes in a BO price? Last I knew, it was a civil wrongdoing exposing the wrongdoer to a civil judgment...TIA,
Of course, none of this can be proven -- but, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if KERX mgt has a personal agenda to see a BO at cheaper prices in collusion with the acquirer...
No, we are waiting for the Trojan Horse to enter for a smoother transition...
EU partner will want to pay more upfront and less royalties, and KERX will want the opposite, each thinking that longterm having more in royalties would be more beneficial, imo. Now, if KERX receives a big or significant upfront payment from their EU Partner but a reduced royalty payment, then that may indeed reveal a BO offer coming soon...since KERX would be giving up a larger royalty stream which would be meaningless upon BO. Furthermore, EU partner won't mind paying a larger upfront partnership fee since a BO will give it back to them largely before it can be spent. JMHO,