Almost everyone here thinks a buy in is a good thing. The only way I will be happy with a buy in is if Offer retains part of his shares or sells to multiple independent buyers. As a less dominating owner not having effective control of the company, I think it is more likely that the minor share holders interests (Yours and mine) will be the driving force behind the company. We would still have both the good and bad that Offer brings process t the of growth, but I see a reduction in his control as a net benefit to us all.
If he sells all his shares to a single entity, we lose his positive influence in the GOG. Another proposal suggested by Electic is the sale of half his shares along with his voting rights to the other half. In either of these cases I would have serious concerns, because in both cases the buyer would have effective control of ERHC. A single entity with effective control would have many opportunities to meet it's own needs at the expense of small shareholders, particularly if the stock price is still low. A company I owned years ago, Calgene, was sold to Monsanto for it's technology at a price most thought to be less than it was worth. Officers in the company received golden parachutes. Some moved on to Monsanto with stock options. Many investors had been in the company for years waiting for the tech to be marketed, and were screwed out of bigger gains by the sale.
I am not saying it will happen here, thankfully we are a US listed company and there are some controls. but opportunities will be there as they are now with a single owner controlling 40% of the company. I do think we might be careful what we wish for. A buy in can be a very good thing or a move from the frying pan to the fire. I would very much like to see control thinned, giving the shareholder at large a true say in what the company does.
db
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
