Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Strasser (strassa2)
What's your view on what happened with the minority shareholder?
I like it. IMO, Steve Wynn has always acted in the best interest of the shareholders. Supposedly, this Okada guy was making "improper" payments to public officials in Asia for a project he was working on. Basically, (esp according to Durrs view of business and corruption in Macau) this is modus operandi for the region.
I like that Wynn is being proactive in shielding itself from future liability (Foreign Corruption Practices Act). It may go through some litigation in ousting Okada, but Wynn actually is one of the few companies that should be able to do so.
From the WSJ: "In 2002, Wynn became the first casino company to add a clause that allows the board itself to declare a shareholder unsuitable, according to a person familiar with the matter. The language grew out of an earlier agreement Mr. Wynn and Mr. Okada drafted when Mr. Okada was under regulatory scrutiny in Nevada, the person said."
All in all, I like Wynn's proactive handling of the situation and I think it's in the best interest of the shareholders and the company going forward.