> The courts have held that, absent fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct, a corporation has the right to eliminate minority stockholders through a reverse split.
I am sorry, but this sounds extremely implausible.
From what I am reading, the company basically tanked, which was the cause for the shares the loose value. Subsequent investment take in at already low valuation was simply an attempt to revitalize basically bankrupt business.
> Ok so the company tanked, and they took in investment.. But none of that makes it necessary to do a reverse split.
Perhaps doing the reverse split was a condition under the investment? I am unsure how this fits into the picture. Did reverse split reduce share values further?
12 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 37.0 ms ] threadSo, every part?
I am sorry, but this sounds extremely implausible.
From what I am reading, the company basically tanked, which was the cause for the shares the loose value. Subsequent investment take in at already low valuation was simply an attempt to revitalize basically bankrupt business.
Perhaps doing the reverse split was a condition under the investment? I am unsure how this fits into the picture. Did reverse split reduce share values further?
In the best case this is a move to reduce administrative expenses relating to stockholders who own an insignificant part of the company.
In the worst case it's a move to steal their shares by forcing them to sell at an unfair price.