SEARCH DEALBREAKER
Wells Fargo & Co. said nothing in a court order obtained by New York-based Citigroup Inc. derails the California bank's plans to acquire Wachovia Corp.
Well, except that whole restraining order thing.
Wells Fargo Says Takeover Agreement With Wachovia Still Stands [Bloomberg]
Posted by Lowly Assistant, Oct 05, 2008 3:40PM
Piggy v. Jack
annnnnd...break!
Posted by Anal_yst, Oct 05, 2008 3:47PM
love the title. Question though, where was the press release from the Gov't where they suspended rule of law?
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 3:56PM
If you are going to make the "Quiet, [person/entity] has the conch shell now!" joke, please give credit where credit is due. I know it's from Lord of the Flies, but Jon Stewart just made the joke last week and you most likely got it from there... if you want Bloomberg to give props to your readers, then give props yourself... i love you guys anyway... but Jon Stewart is a god among men
Posted by ep, Oct 05, 2008 4:08PM
"I know it's from Lord of the Flies, but Jon Stewart just made the joke last week and you most likely got it from there..."
I watch the Daily Show only sporadically, frankly. I didn't catch Stewart's Hommage to Golding. Even if I had, I doubt I would have cited it here. God among men? Perhaps. Citation worthy when repeating a 53 year old reference? No.
Posted by Lowly Assistant, Oct 05, 2008 4:21PM
5,
Sorry, but what a dense argument you make. If EP had written, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," and some retard (see: Oprah) had used the saying a week earlier in his/her book club, would you award credit to Dickens or Oprah? It's a very common literary reference. Relax, chingo.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:11PM
this comment by WB is completely irrelevant!! all they talk about is how the merger agreement is not at the expense of the FDIC and taxpayers and that it is in the best interests' of the shareholders...BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER!! Citi has a signed agreement by WB that says it wont and cant entertain offers from other suitors. therefore, no matter how good it is for everyone involved (even if Wells Fargo gave the FDIC $100 billion dollars) it doesn't change the exclusivity agreement between C and WB.
That being said, shareholders would still have to vote on any deal proposed by C. This means C will prob. have to sweeten their deal to more than a dollar a share, lol. This acquisition will still be good for C though!
It would be interesting if C stops providing funding to WB, not make any offer, and force WB to sit until the exclusivity agreement runs out. this would make WB get closer and closer to bankruptcy. then C can buy its desired unit from WB and wells can buy the rest...all an bankruptcy auctions! I KNOW THIS IS A IMPROBABLE OUTCOME but still fun to think about.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:11PM
this comment by WB is completely irrelevant!! all they talk about is how the merger agreement is not at the expense of the FDIC and taxpayers and that it is in the best interests' of the shareholders...BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER!! Citi has a signed agreement by WB that says it wont and cant entertain offers from other suitors. therefore, no matter how good it is for everyone involved (even if Wells Fargo gave the FDIC $100 billion dollars) it doesn't change the exclusivity agreement between C and WB.
That being said, shareholders would still have to vote on any deal proposed by C. This means C will prob. have to sweeten their deal to more than a dollar a share, lol. This acquisition will still be good for C though!
It would be interesting if C stops providing funding to WB, not make any offer, and force WB to sit until the exclusivity agreement runs out. this would make WB get closer and closer to bankruptcy. then C can buy its desired unit from WB and wells can buy the rest...all an bankruptcy auctions! I KNOW THIS IS A IMPROBABLE OUTCOME but still fun to think about.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:12PM
this comment by WB is completely irrelevant!! all they talk about is how the merger agreement is not at the expense of the FDIC and taxpayers and that it is in the best interests' of the shareholders...BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER!! Citi has a signed agreement by WB that says it wont and cant entertain offers from other suitors. therefore, no matter how good it is for everyone involved (even if Wells Fargo gave the FDIC $100 billion dollars) it doesn't change the exclusivity agreement between C and WB.
That being said, shareholders would still have to vote on any deal proposed by C. This means C will prob. have to sweeten their deal to more than a dollar a share, lol. This acquisition will still be good for C though!
It would be interesting if C stops providing funding to WB, not make any offer, and force WB to sit until the exclusivity agreement runs out. this would make WB get closer and closer to bankruptcy. then C can buy its desired unit from WB and wells can buy the rest...all an bankruptcy auctions! I KNOW THIS IS A IMPROBABLE OUTCOME but still fun to think about.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:12PM
this comment by WB is completely irrelevant!! all they talk about is how the merger agreement is not at the expense of the FDIC and taxpayers and that it is in the best interests' of the shareholders...BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER!! Citi has a signed agreement by WB that says it wont and cant entertain offers from other suitors. therefore, no matter how good it is for everyone involved (even if Wells Fargo gave the FDIC $100 billion dollars) it doesn't change the exclusivity agreement between C and WB.
That being said, shareholders would still have to vote on any deal proposed by C. This means C will prob. have to sweeten their deal to more than a dollar a share, lol. This acquisition will still be good for C though!
It would be interesting if C stops providing funding to WB, not make any offer, and force WB to sit until the exclusivity agreement runs out. this would make WB get closer and closer to bankruptcy. then C can buy its desired unit from WB and wells can buy the rest...all an bankruptcy auctions! I KNOW THIS IS A IMPROBABLE OUTCOME but still fun to think about.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:12PM
this comment by WB is completely irrelevant!! all they talk about is how the merger agreement is not at the expense of the FDIC and taxpayers and that it is in the best interests' of the shareholders...BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER!! Citi has a signed agreement by WB that says it wont and cant entertain offers from other suitors. therefore, no matter how good it is for everyone involved (even if Wells Fargo gave the FDIC $100 billion dollars) it doesn't change the exclusivity agreement between C and WB.
That being said, shareholders would still have to vote on any deal proposed by C. This means C will prob. have to sweeten their deal to more than a dollar a share, lol. This acquisition will still be good for C though!
It would be interesting if C stops providing funding to WB, not make any offer, and force WB to sit until the exclusivity agreement runs out. this would make WB get closer and closer to bankruptcy. then C can buy its desired unit from WB and wells can buy the rest...all an bankruptcy auctions! I KNOW THIS IS A IMPROBABLE OUTCOME but still fun to think about.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:19PM
@ 10-14, the amount of times you push the button at a stoplight will not make the light change any faster.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:20PM
Anyone care to weigh in on whether WB's comment is relevant?
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:30PM
As far as I know Stewart fans are Ron Paul fans.
Poor John lost all his money in Lehman. The lesson is, never trust your brother.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:37PM
Again, number of repeated posts is inversely proportional to IQ.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 5:41PM
I like the part where they save the taxpayers' money. Morons.
Posted by Anal_yst, Oct 05, 2008 5:48PM
@ 19
Bingo
@10-14
Ever hear of breach of fiduciary duty, amongst various other factors you're argument fails to consider? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, per se, but as with most things its not so black & white.
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 6:11PM
the question of breach of fiduciary duty applies at the time they entered into the original agreement with Citi. They were choosing between taking the Citi deal, or putting the whole bank into receivership ... clearly getting something, albeit only a dollar, is better than nothing
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 9:11PM
@ 22 - Well, right. Yet their fiduciary duty doesn't stop simply at the time a term sheet is signed. Getting a dollar at that time was clearly better than noting. And now, getting $7 is better than $1. And if Citi comes back with $10, that would be better than $7.
Oct 29, 2008, 1:45pm
Announcements: Policy 29 Oct 2008 Seasonal Parties I would like...
More »
Oct 29, 2008, 1:18pm
Okay, people--we've set up the eBay account. You can...
More »
Oct 24, 2008, 3:38pm
3:29: Hold music. Hopefully I won't get mysteriously kicked off....
More »
Most Commented
Most Viewed
Most Recommended
Blogroll
Top Categories
Archive Dates
Posted by guest, Oct 05, 2008 3:22PM
1st whoohoo
Citi = OWNED