1) Yes, read entire transcript a couple of times through.
2) On your point #1 - Come on already? No. Perhaps I overemphasized in word, but not in theory. The judge is seeing this case more from the plaintiff's eyes than the defendant's. Look at the ruling - everything the plaintiff asked for.
When is the next court date for this case? It doesn't have one. One of four things will happen here.
A) A new vote on the merger at a minimum. No one has heard anything about that. That would take what, weeks? A month? And expect the judge to give HD all his voting shares & Frank few of his. If a new vote was the plan, we would have heard about it by now. We don't even know what the ground rules would be, at this point. This option is likely a non-starter.
B) Case continues. If so, 6-12 months from now we will know the result. VeeMost will be gone by then, though.
C) Parties reach a settlement. Strongest possibility of a "positive" conclusion. Expect HD to get most or all of what he wants if this occurs, as his case is, at this point, strongest.
D) Frank shuffles VeeMost into a new shell or VM finds a shell elsewhere. HD gets his near-worthless shares, as do we.
3) Your point #2. Judge would likely find it unfortunate if the merger fell through, but he surely doesn't "care"...at least not like we do. HD only wants the merger to go through if he gets paid. If he is not going to get paid - or not get paid enough - he would rather burn it down.
4) Your point #3. Addressed above. No party could agree on how to carry a revote forward, including the court. Gambee seemed less than excited. There will not be a revote for the same reason there is almost never a revote in anything - you can't rerun history.
As for Scorpex, while $JPEX did not buy the company in early 2013 & backed out in May, they did buy Scorpex in 2014. Maybe some here knew that...I didn't. That complicates matters greatly vis-a-vis the legality of HD's argument.
And as for a new vote, it doesn't matter what you or I think about HD's shares. Court's opinion is all that matters, and it was clear to me where that opinion was headed.
5) Your point #4. Pure speculation. I think you are allowing what you WANT to be true interfere with what COULD or MAY be true.
The parties may come to an agreement. It's the only way anyone here walks away with a profit. But there are other options I find more likely.
We know, without doubt, the only realistic way the injunction is lifted & the merger goes through is if there is a deal. HD doesn't lose much if it doesn't...he just doesn't gain anything. And that's a much different hook than I am on. I can't measure, assess, or control the variable of HD & don't like where I see the court leaning in this case. Not at all.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Just defending my opinion...likely poorly, as I didn't have the time to properly lay out the argument.
AI
