Months passed before the Pentax board became aware of Hoya's plans to dismember Pentax and sell of the Camera, (and other), division(s). A contract can be rendered void if both parties don't understand the implications of said contract. At least that's how tort law used to work. There must be a meeting of the minds. If this is case Pentax had every right to withdraw. Hoya has every right to attempt a hostile takeover.
Tom C wrote: >>> They don't look at Pentax as a camera company, they look at what the >>> parts are worth as parts. >>> >> That is their willful blindness, which has nothing to do with Pentax (other >> than the misery they are causing the company). >> >> William Robb >> >> >> > > Hi Bill, > > Pentax has been largely responsible for what Pentax has done in the past. I > think investors by and large, hope that their investment pays off, i.e., the > company does well, otherwise they generally invest their funds elsewhere. > > We just sit around here hoping Pentax does well so that there's more product > to buy. Investors have put their own and their clients' money where their > mouth is, so to speak. > > The investors are truly doing nothing unfair to Pentax. I have trouble > believing the entire Pentax yarn regarding the board members at large not > being privy to the merger and such. Months passed between the merger > annoucement and Pentax's unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement. > Something stinks in Denmark. > > Tom C. > > > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
