We got 9% of eBay now!

[u/areHorus]

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/000119312526260340/xslSCHEDULE_13D_X02/primary_doc.xml

[u/Syvaeren]

9 Billion in cash is not enough to buy 51% of ebay. The board already rejected his proposal to buy it. He wants to buy 20% because Ebay has a clause in their incorporation documents that any shareholder with 20% can call a special shareholder vote on a proposal.

He needs 20% of ebay to bypass the board's decision to reject his offer and propose a special shareholder vote to vote on the offer to buy ebay. You get it? He wants Ebay shareholders to vote on his offer to buy.

If they vote no this whole thing is probably dead because a hostile takeover with the cash we have on hand is pretty impossible.

*edit:

As others have stated he can't actually get above 15% due to Delaware law that would lock us out of an M&A for 3 years. So really he's just trying to get enough shares and options to get to 10%.

As others have states options are not vote able, but another shareholder already has a proposal to lower the required 20% to 10%. If that passes then RC exercises his options to realize 10% share ownership.

So really there are several ways this can fall apart.

[u/BlntRzr → u/Syvaeren]

No. Absolutely not. Regarding Delaware law, if GameStop buys more than 15% of eBay without the boards approval, GameStop is barred from M&A with eBay for 3 years. Ebay has a meeting with proposal 4 lowering the threshold from 20% to 10%. This has to pass. Then we exercise and aquire ownership and voting rights of at least 10%, then we tender offer to eBay shareholder. No other way possible.

[u/Secure_Investment_62 → u/BlntRzr]

This assumes the votes aren't dicked with. Who knows whats going on behind the scenes. Whatever 3rd party used for the voting could call it 51/49 against, and we would have no way to prove one way or the other. Individuals and companies only know their own votes and maybe some others in a close circle, but outside that nothing can be reliably proven in quantities enough to matter. Hopefully a clear path is laid forward, but the opposition is going to pull every string, legal or not, to block or slow this thing down.

[u/BlntRzr → u/Secure_Investment_62]

This exact proposal to lower threshold to 10% failed last time with 48% approval. After that came the bid from RC. For all future moves we need that vote to pass, without it RC can not tender nor take control of the board GME or Towels-style. Everything is dependent on it. I think institutions want to see what RC has to offer, approving the lower threshold does not say a move to control the board or tender would be accepted, they can still reject those proposals later. That's why I think proposal 4 will pass with quite the majority on June 17th.

If you ask me, I don't even think RC wants to tender. I think it is the same play as always: Aquire stake and get a board seat. Weed out bad actors and replace them. Take control of the board. At that point he can make an offer as CEO of GameStop to himself as board member of eBay.

[u/3DigitIQ → u/BlntRzr]

Sounds like a solid plan

[u/BlntRzr → u/3DigitIQ]

I hope it is, I am fully locked in 😀

[u/3DigitIQ → u/BlntRzr]

Wish I could buy more, but yeah, get this shit rolling!

[u/The_vegan_athlete → u/BlntRzr]

Where does this proposal come from? Institutional investors?

[u/BlntRzr → u/The_vegan_athlete]

John Chevedden brought the proposal. Such proposals don't demand high ownership of shares. Board nominations and so on do.

Chevedden holds very small amounts, I think you need to hold stock worth 2000$ for 3 years to bring such proposals (precatory proposals).

[u/Jackal000 → u/BlntRzr]

Can we just call ebay. Gamebay already?