It is unfair if a bridge loan is involved. If the preferred stakeholders have the chance they will remove the commons from the equation. In the end both sides take a risk with their shares and it is usually more meaningful to people with little money.
In the example, the common shareholders didn't make a profit because the company didn't make a profit. Ignoring the bridge loan for a moment, after all their expenses, the company just managed to make back what was put in.
The hypothetical bridge loan in this case did earn a profit, but it was a high risk loan. The company was going to be insolvent in 60 days and they hadn't yet found a buyer. The lenders got a multiplier because they risked losing their $10 million loan.
This bridge loan certainly could have been unfair, depending on whether the riskiness was worth the multiplier (for instance, if the company took a loan with 100x multiplier, it would clearly be abusive). If that were the case, the minority shareholders could sue and would win.
> Again, let me emphasize, this is not inherently unfair. [...] The problem is most companies hide it.
The author is saying it's not inherently unfair if the company is honest and upfront about it.