Court nixes expedited trial on Yahoo severance plans

A Delaware Chancery Court on Monday denied a fast-track schedule to hold a trial on whether to invalidate Yahoo's controversial employee severance plans, prior to the company's annual shareholders meeting on August 1, according to a Reuters report.

Two Detroit pension funds, which had filed a shareholders lawsuit against Yahoo over its handling of the unsolicited buyout bid by Microsoft and subsequent withdrawal, had been seeking to invalidate Yahoo's employees severance plans. In the lawsuit, the shareholders allege the severance plans potentially make any change of control in ownership or board composition a costly venture.

The shareholders had sought to have a trial on the severance plans, prior to Yahoo's annual shareholders meeting, at which time investor activist Carl Icahn is currently planning to run a dissident slate to unseat Yahoo's entire board. The pension funds were concerned that unless the severance plans were invalidated, a successful election by Icahn would set off the first of two triggers needed to activate the plans.

Chancellor William Chandler, in issuing his order, stated Yahoo's recently announced Google search ad deal did not alter the plaintiffs core argument and did not justify an expedited trial, according to the Reuters report.

In the two-page ruling, Chandler also noted that he felt the Yahoo shareholders case had created a media maelstrom, one source familiar with the ruling told News.com.

Chandler noted he may hear Yahoo's motion to dismiss the amended lawsuit prior to its August 1 shareholders meeting, according to the source.

[flickrz]

Thank God court rejected this nonsense. Else, people will go to court against every decision a company management makes and ask for an expedite trials.

[MikeeeC]

I am very much against most shareholder lawsuits, which, in reality, are little more than an attempt to punish someone else for making a bad investment. In this case, however, this is exactly why shareholder lawsuits exist ? an existing, incompetent management, making decisions and crafting policies designed not to benefit the companies or the shareholders, but rather to punish both for even contemplating the ouster of entrenched management. The actions by the Yahoo board were, in reality, little more than an attempt to preserve their positions, and they should be prosecuted for their egregious breach of fiduciary responsibility.

I know that this discussion tends to be framed as ?Microsoft vs. Yahoo?, and the MS-haters come out of the woodwork to cheer the Yahoo board, but that is really not the point. The policies enacted by the board were designed to prevent any company (whether you or I happen to like the company or not) from coming to the rescue of the flailing Yahoo. Nothing like waving a gun to ward off rescuers as your ship slowly sinks?

[humanssssss]

I believe Yahoo is a public company and the shares of the company can be bought and sold in the open market. How is it that these shareholders who don't like the direction of the company and its future prospect to make them money keep on holding onto the stocks and complain to the US government that the company is not making them money?!!? If that's the case, these shareholders have the right to sell their shares and buy other companies that make them money.

This is a ridiculous lawsuit that does nothing but further depress the company's stock. The shareholders should sell and that's the end of the story.

Based on these shareholders logic, I can buy 1 share of a company and sue the company for not making me money or not agreeing with a deal that makes me money. *cough* If a company is not making you money, you still want to stay? Bull! You pull your money out and put in companies that make you money.

[MikeeeC]

While I do not entirely disagree with humanssssss? sentiments, the comments show a real lack of understanding. The matter at hand is not whether the Yahoo management is making money for the shareholders. The board of directors of any public company have a legal fiduciary responsibility to make decisions that are (at least intended to be) in the best interests of the investors. In the case of Yahoo, the board made decisions that were deliberately harmful to the investors and beneficial to the board. It is not a case of the company making money or not, and the issue really has nothing to do with the stock price; rather, it is a simple case of corporate malfeasance by a management group that sought to strengthen their entrenched positions, to the clear and immediate detriment of the company and its shareholders.

[tonygreig]

thats nothing like that.. there is no software ,,,, comparing pc.. its always going t be the best
===========================================
tonygreig

Addiction Recovery Delaware

[benjaminstraight]

Our daily Yahoo drama.