management and the board
agreed to the deal. Companies are not democracies , while it is nice to have grassroots approval , it is a top down process. the very nature of these transactions make it impossible to disclose until it is done.
Ultimately in a decision like this the board has only one entity to consider -shareholders , if they believe the deal will create more value to shareholders they should consider it
Value maybe subjective Of course shareholders could be against for ideological reasons and prefer not take the money, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
While I agree with you that decisions of this nature are made top-down, the value in RedHat is its employees (as RedHat sells support for Open Source software). If a mass exodus occurs because of this acquisition, RedHat will no longer be providing value to the shareholders and will become a long running debt with no future in the black on IBM's books. It is quite possible that IBM will fail at properly handling RedHat after the acquisition due to entrenched business culture that is incapable of grasping the cultural change required to support a business model such as the one that RedHat employs. Business often appears as a bedfellow with economics with regards to ignoring the "human factor".
Ultimately in a decision like this the board has only one entity to consider -shareholders , if they believe the deal will create more value to shareholders they should consider it
Value maybe subjective Of course shareholders could be against for ideological reasons and prefer not take the money, that doesn't seem to be the case here.