The simple clarity and straightforwardness of the 3PAR and Dell deal is being muddied by the activities of US law firms that are as beneficial in many people's eyes as an HIV infection.

We read that the Kendall Law Group, "a national securities firm led by a former federal judge with attorneys that include a former U.S. Attorney, is investigating 3PAR, Inc. for shareholders in connection with the proposed acquisition by Dell Inc. ... The firm’s investigation seeks to determine whether 3PAR and its Board breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the agreement without properly shopping for a deal that would provide better value for shareholders. If you are a 3PAR shareholder and would like additional information about your rights."

Into every life a little rain must fall but why must it be polluted by the kind of toxic legal dust this bunch of legal weevils undertakes? Unfortunately there is more than one weevil scenting a few scraps for their slavering jaws in the Dell 3PAR deal.

We read: "The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, founded by a former state prosecutor and enforcement attorney for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the law firm of Powers Taylor, LLP are investigating potential legal claims against the Board of Directors of 3PAR, Inc. ... related to the proposed acquisition of PAR by Dell, Inc. …. The investigation relates to possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of PAR for approving this transaction, whether the consideration to be received by PAR shareholders is fair, and whether PAR’s board of Directors acted in the shareholders’ best interests.

If you currently own shares ..." yadda yadda.

We read: "Robbins Umeda LLP has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by members of the Board of Directors of 3Par, Inc. in connection with Dell Inc.'s ... intent to acquire all outstanding common shares of 3Par. … Robbins Umeda LLP's investigation concerns whether … the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to 3Par shareholders by failing to adequately shop the Company before entering into the transaction with Dell. "

Which is the lesser of these three legal weevils, or are they each as bad, as distasteful, as disgusting as each other? ®

Related stories

• Dell throws in 3PAR towel (2 September 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/09/02/dell_defeated_3par/

• If HP gets 3PAR, does Donatelli get HP? (2 September 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/09/02/3par_3_days/

• HP and Dell trade (still more) 3PAR bids (28 August 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/08/28/dell_hp_bid_war_continues/

• HP tops Dell's offer for 3PAR (27 August 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/08/27/hp_rebid/

• HP bangs on glass as 3PAR marches to the altar (25 August 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/08/25/3par_hp_gun_at_dell/

• 3PAR had three suitors (24 August 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/08/24/3par_bid_shuffle/

• HP sharp-elbows Dell to bid for 3PAR (23 August 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/08/23/hp_bids_for_3par/

• Dell rides enterprise to 22% revenue jump (19 August 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/08/19/dell_q2_earnings/

• NatWest calls off legal attack dogs (2 August 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/08/02/natwest_legal_letter/

• NatWest sets lawyers on student site (27 July 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/07/27/natwest_law_pah/

• More vultures attack Compellent (15 April 2010)

  https://www.theregister.com/2010/04/15/compellent_attacks_increase/

• Legal vultures circle STEC after overstock admission (9 November 2009)

  https://www.theregister.com/2009/11/09/stec_class_actions/