FJ writes: "They [Poet] would mount a defense as quickly as they could before they were forced to present any offer to shareholders."
I'm confused here. If POET were to get an offer they liked, then they would announce "here it is, we have accepted it, all we need is the requisite percentage of shareholder approval, we urge you to vote for it."
If POET were to be receive an offer that they thought was inadequate, would it not then be up to the potential acquirer to announce their intentions and make a tender offer directly to shareholders? At which point Poet management would say that they have analyzed the offer and it, essentially, sucks, and therefore recommend that shareholders vote it down.
Or, is there a situation where POET would be obligated to themselves inform their shareholders about the offer, and, of course, explain why they feel it's insufficient?
I suppose the key would be if there were an offer that some deem inadequate, but the requisite percentage of shares is willing to take, would be to rustle up further interest in the time between the announcement and the vote. Does anyone know how long a period of time that is?
The good thing is, from all we've heard, and besides the obvious AAPL, there are other fairly big time companies that have a leg up on the tech, and perhaps showing them the ring oscillator and the VSCEL thingamajig, would cause them to throw their hats in the ring.
So Peter and the boys do have work to do - if the share price rises significantly and soon, then an inadequate offer is far more easily identifiable by all shareholders, without that, the danger is that some shareholders are just going to say, "cash me out, please."
"Exciting times" - I would say that qualifies FJ as a master of understatement!
