RE:RE:RE:RE:Special Committee does not recommend Catalyst OfferOh, for sure, lawyers were writing it up for them at the request of Baker. That's expected.
Natually, they have to be vague and unspecific in order not to say anything incriminating.
The question is where do they go from here?
My guess is a sweetened baker offer a few days before the meeting... Say on December 15th. If Baker doesn't change is strategy, the deal will get rejected and the SP will fall untill their lockin 57% expires in January. Then we might get progress, but only afterwards.
The board's job is to facilitate the progress in the process, not to play 1 side's agenda.
pwipjtl wrote:
agree with your interpretation Bookends. I'd also like to point out the key (but hidden) message in the second paragraph ---- if the special committee found anything wrong with catalyst offer, then they don't need the third paragraph. I see lawyers writing up this news release, while promoting bakers agenda, it also tries to protect the special committee from potential future lawsuits against them.