WSJ's Lucchetti = Loose Heady
ArcaNews has highlighted the absurd reporting by this WSJ reporter, Aaron Lucchetti, before. And for the most part, the WSJ has seemed to quell the diarhea of nonsense from Lucchetti's pen. But, on the day when the date for the much-anticipated vote was announced, he thought it'd be news-worthy to publish a report that Higgens and a "handful of supporters" will file a motion to stop the merger vote.
As usual Lucchetti cites his favorite source, "A person familiar with the case." Hmmm, a person familiar with the case? Maybe the assistant of the lawyer working on it? Most likely, there's no source, but he needs to attribute his bucket-headed thoughts to someone.
Lucchetti pontificates that his source has said that "Mr. Higgins's legal team might ask for a new fairness opinion from an investment bank that would be selected by members."
Think about this for a second.
If Higgens has any supporters, it's clearly the minority. So Lucchetti actually believes that a minority of crabby seatholders will block the vote, pay for another fairness opinion, and then pitch the revised fairness opinion (assuming there'd be any revisions) to the majority of seatholders who are quite happy with the fortunes they've amassed since the deal, in its original form, was announced? And then, ultimately when a vote would be held, and the new fairness opinion circulated, he'd be driving the deal? Higgens and a handful of supporters, driving the biggest deal in the history of the US equity market structure? What about any of this conjecture is news-worthy?
Maybe Lucchetti should consider writing for the National Enquirer -- a rag notorious for fictional sources, and laughable stories!
Sue Everyone!
What if members who are in favor of the deal decide to sue Higgens for blocking the vote? Or what if AX shareholders filed a class-action suit to counter Higgens? Or what if the NYSE sued Higgens? Maybe Higgens'll sue the SEC once the deal closes? When would the suits end? At best, the Higgens lawsuit is a waste of money and time.
As usual Lucchetti cites his favorite source, "A person familiar with the case." Hmmm, a person familiar with the case? Maybe the assistant of the lawyer working on it? Most likely, there's no source, but he needs to attribute his bucket-headed thoughts to someone.
Lucchetti pontificates that his source has said that "Mr. Higgins's legal team might ask for a new fairness opinion from an investment bank that would be selected by members."
Think about this for a second.
If Higgens has any supporters, it's clearly the minority. So Lucchetti actually believes that a minority of crabby seatholders will block the vote, pay for another fairness opinion, and then pitch the revised fairness opinion (assuming there'd be any revisions) to the majority of seatholders who are quite happy with the fortunes they've amassed since the deal, in its original form, was announced? And then, ultimately when a vote would be held, and the new fairness opinion circulated, he'd be driving the deal? Higgens and a handful of supporters, driving the biggest deal in the history of the US equity market structure? What about any of this conjecture is news-worthy?
Maybe Lucchetti should consider writing for the National Enquirer -- a rag notorious for fictional sources, and laughable stories!
Sue Everyone!
What if members who are in favor of the deal decide to sue Higgens for blocking the vote? Or what if AX shareholders filed a class-action suit to counter Higgens? Or what if the NYSE sued Higgens? Maybe Higgens'll sue the SEC once the deal closes? When would the suits end? At best, the Higgens lawsuit is a waste of money and time.
posted by . at 4:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home