1. Why couldn't AAPL allow the general public to buy $150M worth of non-voting shares, but instead he went to only one entity - MSFT - for this financial lifeline? This is pricing discrimination, because our price is $INFINITY and MSFT's price was $150M. 2. When MSFT bought $150M worth of AAPL shares in '97, did they buy from the secondary market or did they buy from a new offering? These shares were non-voting anyways. 3. Why didn't AAPL issue$150M worth of high-yielding bonds to MSFT? This would have had more stability, paid a higher-than-normal yield, would have been tax favorable to AAPL, and they are also a non-voting investment in MSFT. 4. Finally, how does a company "issue shares towards prosperity"? This dilutes EPS and just doesn't make sense to me. This is what doesn't make sense specifically: If a distressed company issues $100M of shares, then that distressed company's new business model is to simply issue shares and some C-level executives (i.e. CEO, COO, etc.) and i- Bankers get rich. But the new shareholders lose value over time. Their investment in a distressed company is bad. How do you issue your way to prosperity? 5. What effect would it have had if MSFT bought $150M worth of stocks in the secondary market (from the NYSE or NASDAQ exchange)?