In a message dated 96-04-17 18:55:14 EDT, pkehoe@american.edu (Patrick E.
Kehoe) writes:
>> the Board engaged in a frank discussion of the Thomson/West merger. At
the end >>of this discussion, we concluded that the Board would remain
neutral on the merger. >> The Board was well aware of some concerns, yet it
also saw benefits to be gained . >>. . There was general agreement that an
acquisition by Thomson was preferable to >>the alternative of an acquisition
by, for instance, a financial investor with little or no >>interest in legal
publishing.
It might be reduce controversy if you would tell the members what some
of those benefits are. Huge concerns are: monopoly pricing and control. So
there must be huge benefits that balance those huge concerns and cause you to
remain neutral. What are those huge benefits?
By the way, why would a "financial investor with little or no interest
in legal publishing" pay 2 billion dollars for a legal publishing company?
Was there, in fact, such an interested investor?
Polly A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:12 PST