Technology news and Jobs
VIRTUALISATION
Yahoo! 'mischaracterised' proposal, says Microsoft
VIRTUALISATION
Yahoo! 'mischaracterised' proposal, says Microsoft | Yahoo! 'mischaracterised' proposal, says Microsoft |
|
| by Stephen Withers | |
| Tuesday, 15 July 2008 | |
|
Page 1 of 2
Microsoft's latest proposal to purchase Yahoo!'s search business was made in response to an approach by Yahoo! not the other way round, according to the software giant. But which version will shareholders believe?Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
According to a statement issued by Microsoft, the proposal "was submitted at the request of Yahoo! Chairman Roy Bostock as a result of apparent attempts by Mr. [Carl] Icahn to have Microsoft and Yahoo! engage on a search transaction on terms Mr. Icahn believed Microsoft would be willing to accept and which Microsoft understands Mr. Icahn had discussed with Yahoo!" The company asserts that its CEO, Steve Ballmer, was told by Yahoo! chairman Roy Bostock that "with substantial guarantees on the table and an increase in the TAC (traffic acquisition cost) rate, there are the pillars of a search only deal to be done", and that Ballmer was encouraged to submit a new search-only proposal. And where Bostock said Microsoft and Icahn gave his board less than 24 hours to consider "a 'take it or leave it' proposal" which he described as "ludicrous", Microsoft says this "mischaracterized" the situation. Microsoft's version is that it "asked that Yahoo! confirm whether it would agree that the enhancements were sufficient to form the basis for the parties to engage in negotiations over the weekend on a letter of intent and more detailed term sheets", which it describes as "a timetable in order to move forward to intensive negotiations", not an ultimatum. Furthermore, Microsoft says its proposal did not include changes to Yahoo!'s governance, whereas Bostock said it "would require the immediate replacement of the current Board and removal of the top management team at Yahoo!." Can they both be correct on that point? See page 2. |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|









