There's a lot more going on than you wrote in the article. Icahn also had something like 24% economic (but not voting) interest in cash-settled swaps, so if he still holds them, he had a selfish reason to not tank the share price. It's also possible he wanted to get his people off the board and unload the shares so that he can be free of the insider label do whatever he wants with the swaps whenever he wants.
Or, maybe it was Paulson that wanted to add to his share holdings (he also bought more than 6 million shares in June; before that, he held around 25 million shares compared to 70 million now) more than Icahn wanted to unload his shares, and so the negotiated price was higher than the market price. Or, maybe Icahn unloaded the shares to raise some cash but entered in more swaps. So it's not clear to me that this is a challenge situation; they might be on the same side, even if not working together, (e.g., Paulson buys up Icahn's shares to give Icahn more flexibility to enter into more swaps, and the swap counterparties have to buy more shares to hedge the swaps, pushing up the shares even higher, benefiting them both). Or they might be trying to buy the company outright.
Also, Paulson is the chair of the board, not just any old board member. Additionally, a few months ago, a shareholder rights plan was proposed (and to be voted on in a special shareholder meeting in October).
As far as I understand, the main thing preventing the distribution of the BLCO to stakeholders has not been the objections of debtholders, but instead the opt-out litigation; but the speed of settlements for that litigation has been accelerating, with a trial date for a number of the cases in September.
In addition to distributing the BLCO stake to shareholders, distributing Solta to shareholders would be another victory; you can look at Solta's profitability, revenue, and growth rate and a value of a few billion dollars (more than BHC's market cap) would not be unreasonable.
Re. the thing about discounts on large sales - it would seem to me that's a symmetrical thing, in that if you want to quickly buy another 10% of a company, you'd probably expect to pay a 15-25% premium. It's just that we more often see large holders try to sell their 10% than buy an extra 10%.
So I'd suggest the premium is no great mystery, it just says that this trade happened because Paulson wanted to buy, rather than because Icahn wanted to sell.
But yeah, the fact a $9/sh transaction happened between two incredibly sophisticated insiders probably suggests that's about as good a valuation as you're going to get - less, of course, a small discount for the possibility that Paulson is able to maneuver such that he gains in a way the unwashed masses don't.
Interesting... how big a position is it for each of them respectively?
Could be (more) interesting to throw a few dollars at some LEAPS and watch them "figure it out" as opposed to following it closely and owning the equity outright.
is there a chance that Icahn currently is under pressure to liquidate some due to the (quite) recent short report? The div he has to pay is astronomical and if he does not find enough buyers for his units could that force such a move?
There's a lot more going on than you wrote in the article. Icahn also had something like 24% economic (but not voting) interest in cash-settled swaps, so if he still holds them, he had a selfish reason to not tank the share price. It's also possible he wanted to get his people off the board and unload the shares so that he can be free of the insider label do whatever he wants with the swaps whenever he wants.
Or, maybe it was Paulson that wanted to add to his share holdings (he also bought more than 6 million shares in June; before that, he held around 25 million shares compared to 70 million now) more than Icahn wanted to unload his shares, and so the negotiated price was higher than the market price. Or, maybe Icahn unloaded the shares to raise some cash but entered in more swaps. So it's not clear to me that this is a challenge situation; they might be on the same side, even if not working together, (e.g., Paulson buys up Icahn's shares to give Icahn more flexibility to enter into more swaps, and the swap counterparties have to buy more shares to hedge the swaps, pushing up the shares even higher, benefiting them both). Or they might be trying to buy the company outright.
Also, Paulson is the chair of the board, not just any old board member. Additionally, a few months ago, a shareholder rights plan was proposed (and to be voted on in a special shareholder meeting in October).
As far as I understand, the main thing preventing the distribution of the BLCO to stakeholders has not been the objections of debtholders, but instead the opt-out litigation; but the speed of settlements for that litigation has been accelerating, with a trial date for a number of the cases in September.
In addition to distributing the BLCO stake to shareholders, distributing Solta to shareholders would be another victory; you can look at Solta's profitability, revenue, and growth rate and a value of a few billion dollars (more than BHC's market cap) would not be unreasonable.
Re. the thing about discounts on large sales - it would seem to me that's a symmetrical thing, in that if you want to quickly buy another 10% of a company, you'd probably expect to pay a 15-25% premium. It's just that we more often see large holders try to sell their 10% than buy an extra 10%.
So I'd suggest the premium is no great mystery, it just says that this trade happened because Paulson wanted to buy, rather than because Icahn wanted to sell.
But yeah, the fact a $9/sh transaction happened between two incredibly sophisticated insiders probably suggests that's about as good a valuation as you're going to get - less, of course, a small discount for the possibility that Paulson is able to maneuver such that he gains in a way the unwashed masses don't.
Interesting... how big a position is it for each of them respectively?
Could be (more) interesting to throw a few dollars at some LEAPS and watch them "figure it out" as opposed to following it closely and owning the equity outright.
is there a chance that Icahn currently is under pressure to liquidate some due to the (quite) recent short report? The div he has to pay is astronomical and if he does not find enough buyers for his units could that force such a move?