clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

I thought whale hunting was illegal...

...unless you pretend it's for scientific research?

Meanwhile some folks are making hay about a clause that is allegedly in the current Kings partnership agreement. They say a buyer who was not ROFR'd over must then buy a percentage of the minority owner's shares of the team.

I don't read it that way. It seems people read whatever they want into these things.

From John_S in the last thread: "There is one more note of interest in Section 3 of the proposal titled “Sale of an Interest in the General Partner”:

“Any offer received by the General Partners to purchase a portion, or all, of their interest, which was not purchased by the Limited Partners pursuant to their Right of First Refusal, would be considered an offer to purchase that percentage of the total entity.”
Meaning, that if the Maloofs sell their interest to the Hansen-Ballmer group for the reported $525 million and the minority owners do not take up the Right of First Refusal, Hansen and Ballmer would be required to purchase a proportional stake of the minority share as well.


I'm not saying this was John's interpretation, just quoting his comment.

I don’t buy this interpretation at all. The clause has nothing to do with the minority shares. It has to do with declaring the majority shares as a “percentage of the total entity,” for the purposes of other clauses that appear in the agreement. It may be the way that a purchase of majority shares does not kick off some circular ROFRisms such as trolltossin has described. It may confer other rights or responsibilities. I do not see how it could be read to force the buyer to purchase minority shares. Nor does it force minority owners to sell such shares to the buyer.

In our case, 65% of the total is 65% of the total, so what other percentage could you apply? The sac homer argument here makes no sense.