Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Controlling interest

A controlling interest in a corporation is defined as the ownership of more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting shares, granting the holder the power to direct the company's management, policies, and major decisions.^[1] While a majority stake guarantees control, de facto controlling interest can sometimes be achieved with less than 50 percent if no other shareholder holds a majority and the owner's voting influence is sufficient to direct key decisions. This threshold ensures that the controlling shareholder can appoint the majority of the board of directors and prevail in shareholder votes on key matters such as mergers, dividends, and executive compensation. In certain legal contexts, such as U.S. tax code provisions for foreign investments, controlling interest is explicitly tied to 50 percent or more of the fair market value of all stock classes.^[2] In corporate governance, a controlling interest enables the owner—whether an individual, family, or institutional investor—to shape strategic direction while potentially raising concerns about minority shareholder protections and conflicts of interest.^[3] Regulations in many jurisdictions, including SEC rules on control securities, treat holders of controlling interests as affiliates, subjecting their share sales to restrictions under Rule 144 to prevent market manipulation.^[4] This structure is common in closely held companies but can complicate public listings, where dispersed ownership aims to balance power among shareholders.^[3] Under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), specifically ASC 810, a controlling financial interest for consolidation purposes generally requires ownership of a majority (>50 percent) of an entity's voting interests in non-variable interest entities (non-VIEs).^[5] For variable interest entities (VIEs), control is determined not solely by voting rights but by having both the power to direct activities that most significantly impact the entity's economic performance and the obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits that could be significant to the VIE.^[6] These criteria, established by FASB standards, ensure that financial statements reflect the economic reality of control beyond mere equity ownership.^[7] In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), acquiring a controlling interest often involves purchasing a majority stake to gain operational control, enabling the buyer to integrate the target company or redirect its strategy.^[8] Such transactions are subject to antitrust scrutiny under laws like the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act if they exceed certain thresholds,^[9] and they may trigger shareholder approval requirements or tender offers. Controlling interests in M&A can also involve premium pricing for blocks of shares, reflecting the value of influence over corporate assets and future earnings.^[10]

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

A controlling interest refers to the ownership by an individual, group, or entity of a sufficient portion of a corporation's voting shares, typically more than 50%, that enables them to exert significant influence over corporate policies, the election of the board of directors, and major strategic decisions.^[1] This form of ownership ensures that the controlling party can direct the company's governance without needing unanimous or broad consensus from other shareholders.^[11] Unlike majority ownership, which emphasizes economic stake through total share value, controlling interest centers on voting power, allowing control to be achieved with less than 50% of shares if ownership is dispersed among other shareholders or if certain shares carry enhanced voting rights.^[1] For instance, under U.S. tax law, a controlling interest is defined as 50% or more of the fair market value of all classes of stock, but this focuses on value rather than pure voting influence.^[2] The distinction highlights how control prioritizes decision-making authority over proportional financial benefit. The term "controlling interest" emerged in early 20th-century corporate law, particularly as scholars like Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means analyzed the separation of ownership from control in large corporations, addressing how fragmented shareholding could otherwise paralyze effective decision-making.^[12] This concept arose amid the growth of public corporations, where dispersed ownership threatened efficient management.^[13] Key to understanding controlling interest are the roles of voting stock, which grants shareholders the right to vote on corporate matters, versus non-voting stock, which provides economic benefits like dividends but no say in governance.^[14] Within shareholder democracy—the principle that owners elect representatives to oversee the corporation—a controlling interest amplifies one party's voice, potentially shaping outcomes in ways that reflect their priorities over the broader shareholder base.^[15]

Thresholds and Types of Control

A controlling interest is typically established through ownership of more than 50% of a company's outstanding voting shares, granting the holder absolute control over corporate decisions by ensuring a majority in shareholder votes.^[5] In cases where ownership reaches exactly 50%, control may still be recognized in practice, particularly if tied votes are resolved in favor of the status quo or through mechanisms like chairmanship tie-breakers, allowing the shareholder to prevail on key matters.^[11] De facto control can arise with significantly less than majority ownership, often in the range of 20% to 40% of voting shares, when other shareholders are passive, dispersed, or aligned with the influential holder, enabling the minority stakeholder to direct outcomes without formal majority power.^[16] This form of control is further facilitated by dual-class stock structures, where certain shares carry supermajority voting rights—such as 10 votes per share—allowing founders or insiders to maintain dominance despite holding a minority of economic ownership.^[17] Controlling interest manifests in three primary types: absolute control, achieved via majority voting ownership; effective control, exercised by a minority stakeholder through alliances, passivity of others, or structural advantages like dual-class shares; and contractual control, secured through shareholder agreements that bind parties to vote in concert or grant veto rights on specific issues.^[18] The thresholds for these types are influenced by factors such as share dispersion, where highly fragmented ownership among minor holders lowers the effective stake needed for influence; quorum requirements, which mandate minimum participation for valid votes and can amplify a concentrated holder's leverage if others abstain; and defensive measures like poison pills, which dilute or burden acquirers exceeding certain ownership levels, thereby raising the practical barrier to gaining control.^[16]^[19] From an accounting standpoint, under ASC 810-10, a controlling financial interest—generally presumed with over 50% voting rights in voting interest entities—requires the holder to consolidate the entity in its financial statements, reflecting full control over its assets, liabilities, and operations.^[20] This standard extends to de facto scenarios where contractual or other arrangements confer equivalent power, ensuring transparent reporting of economic realities beyond mere share percentages.

Legal and Regulatory Aspects

Corporate Governance Implications

A controlling shareholder's influence over the board of directors is profound, as it typically enables the election or removal of directors through majority voting power, thereby shaping the composition of the board to align with the controller's interests. This dominance allows the controlling shareholder to influence key decisions such as setting executive compensation packages, often without requiring input from minority shareholders, as seen in scenarios where controllers approve lucrative pay for affiliated executives. Furthermore, in merger approvals, the controller can steer outcomes by leveraging board control, potentially bypassing minority veto rights unless specific statutory protections apply.^[21]^[22]^[18] Controlling shareholders owe fiduciary duties to the corporation and its minority shareholders, particularly the duty of loyalty, which prohibits self-dealing and requires actions to benefit the company as a whole rather than personal gain. The landmark case of Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Levien (1971) established that when a parent corporation (as controller) engages in transactions with its subsidiary, the intrinsic fairness standard applies if self-dealing is present, shifting the burden to the controller to prove the transaction's fairness, unlike the deferential business judgment rule for non-conflicted decisions. This duty extends to avoiding conflicts where the controller extracts value at the expense of minorities, ensuring undivided loyalty to corporate interests.^[23]^[24] To safeguard minority shareholders from potential oppression by controllers, various mechanisms exist, including cumulative voting, which allows minorities to concentrate votes on specific director candidates to secure representation on the board. Appraisal rights provide dissenting shareholders the option to seek judicial determination of fair value for their shares in certain transactions, such as mergers, preventing coerced sales at undervalued prices. The entire fairness doctrine imposes a rigorous review on conflicted controller transactions, requiring proof of both fair dealing and fair price to shift scrutiny from the business judgment rule, thereby mitigating risks of exploitation.^[25]^[26]^[27] Jurisdictional differences significantly shape these governance dynamics; in Delaware, the business judgment rule generally protects board decisions absent conflicts, but controlling shareholder transactions trigger heightened scrutiny under entire fairness unless cleansed by independent approvals, emphasizing deference to informed director actions. In contrast, the European Union enforces stronger mandatory bid rules under the Takeover Bids Directive, requiring controllers crossing certain thresholds to offer all shareholders an exit at a fair price upon control changes, enhancing minority protections against abrupt shifts in power. These variations reflect broader policy goals, with U.S. approaches favoring flexibility and EU rules prioritizing equitable treatment in cross-border contexts.^[28]^[29] Regulations on self-dealing further constrain controlling shareholders through mandatory disclosures of related-party transactions, as outlined in SEC Regulation S-K Item 404, which requires reporting any transaction exceeding $120,000 involving directors, officers, or significant shareholders (including controllers with 5% or more ownership). These disclosures must detail the nature, amount, and rationale of the transaction, enabling investors to assess potential conflicts and ensuring transparency in dealings that could favor the controller over the company. Non-compliance can lead to enforcement actions, underscoring the SEC's role in upholding governance integrity.^[30]^[31]

Antitrust and Regulatory Oversight

In the United States, the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 requires parties to certain mergers and acquisitions to notify the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in advance if the transaction exceeds specified thresholds, allowing for pre-consummation review to assess potential anticompetitive effects.^[32] For 2025, the minimum size-of-transaction threshold is $126.4 million, with additional criteria applying based on the size of the parties involved.^[32] Complementing this, Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly," targeting mergers that could harm market competition even if they do not immediately result in dominance.^[33] Internationally, the European Union's Merger Regulation governs concentrations with an "EU dimension," requiring notification to the European Commission for mergers that meet turnover thresholds and could significantly impede effective competition within the common market.^[34] The regulation applies to cross-border deals and emphasizes preventing harm to the internal market through a structured review process.^[35] In China, the Anti-Monopoly Law, amended in 2022, empowers the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) to review mergers and acquisitions that may eliminate or restrict competition, with particular scrutiny on control changes in strategic sectors such as technology, energy, and finance to safeguard national economic interests.^[36] Regulatory agencies conduct these reviews by evaluating market concentration and potential anticompetitive impacts, often using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), which measures market share concentration by summing the squares of each firm's market share percentage.^[37] In the U.S., the FTC and DOJ apply HHI thresholds—such as presuming illegality for post-merger HHIs above 1,800 with an increase of 100—to identify highly concentrated markets warranting closer examination.^[38] The European Commission employs similar concentration metrics alongside qualitative assessments of barriers to entry and innovation effects during its Phase I (25 working days) and potential Phase II investigations.^[39] If violations are found, agencies may impose remedies such as structural divestitures to restore competition, behavioral restrictions like non-compete clauses, or outright blocking of the deal.^[40] For instance, the FTC's 2023 challenge to Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard initially sought to block the transaction due to concerns over cloud gaming dominance but ultimately resulted in court approval following Microsoft's commitments to license content to competitors, allowing the deal to close in October 2023.^[41] In the EU, the Commission cleared the same acquisition in May 2023 subject to Microsoft's legally binding commitments to maintain multi-platform access for Activision's content.^[42] Sector-specific rules add layers of oversight, particularly in telecommunications and banking, where changes in controlling interest often trigger additional reviews to protect national security and critical infrastructure. In the U.S., the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) scrutinizes foreign acquisitions in these sectors for security risks, while the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforces telecom-specific approvals to mitigate espionage or supply chain vulnerabilities.^[43] In the EU, the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Screening Regulation requires member states to assess control changes in sensitive areas like telecom networks and financial services, harmonizing national security evaluations across borders.^[44]

Methods of Acquisition

Friendly vs. Hostile Takeovers

A friendly takeover occurs when the board of directors and management of the target company approve and support the acquisition, allowing for negotiated terms between the parties involved.^[45] This cooperative approach often involves stock-for-stock mergers or cash offers, enabling the acquiring company to conduct thorough due diligence and plan for seamless integration.^[46] Advantages include reduced resistance, operational efficiencies from economies of scale, and the ability to secure a premium price that incentivizes shareholder approval.^[46] In contrast, a hostile takeover involves an unsolicited bid where the acquirer bypasses the target company's management and board, directly appealing to shareholders through public announcements or tender offers to gain controlling interest.^[45] Target boards may respond with defensive strategies, such as seeking a white knight—a friendly alternative buyer who acquires the company on more favorable terms to the incumbent management.^[47] Other common defenses include shareholder rights plans, known as poison pills, which dilute the acquirer's stake by allowing other shareholders to purchase additional shares at a discount if a hostile bidder exceeds a certain ownership threshold.^[19] Key differences between the two lie in negotiation dynamics and board responses: friendly takeovers facilitate collaborative access to information and mutual agreement, fostering smoother transitions, while hostile ones rely on market pressure and shareholder persuasion, often triggering litigation and prolonged battles.^[45]^[46] Hostile takeovers rose prominently in the 1980s amid a wave of leveraged buyouts and corporate raiding, driven by deregulation and the availability of junk bond financing, which enabled aggressive bids against undervalued conglomerates.^[48] In modern contexts, activist investors like Carl Icahn have employed hostile tactics, such as accumulating stakes and launching proxy fights to push for control or restructuring, as seen in his 1985 takeover of Trans World Airlines.^[49] Success in both types often hinges on offering share price premiums, typically ranging from 20% to 30% above market value to attract shareholders, though hostile bids frequently encounter higher legal and resistance costs.^[46]^[45]

Tender Offers and Proxy Fights

A tender offer represents a public invitation by a bidder to the shareholders of a target company to sell their shares at a specified price, typically at a premium to the current market value, aimed at acquiring a controlling interest. Under the Williams Act of 1968, which amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, tender offers are subject to stringent disclosure and procedural requirements to protect shareholders. The bidder must file Schedule TO with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date of commencement of the offer, detailing the terms, purpose, and source of funds.^[50]^[51] Additionally, the offer must remain open for a minimum of 20 business days, allowing shareholders sufficient time to evaluate and tender their shares.^[50] Proxy fights, also known as proxy contests, involve a dissident shareholder or group soliciting proxies from other shareholders to vote in favor of their proposed board nominees or corporate actions, often to influence or gain control of the company's direction. These campaigns require the filing of a proxy statement on SEC Schedule 14A, which discloses the dissident's identity, interests, and the proposals being advanced, ensuring transparency in the solicitation process. Compliance often involves seeking no-action letters from the SEC staff to clarify whether proposed solicitations violate proxy rules, such as those prohibiting misleading statements. Proxy fights typically occur ahead of annual meetings or special shareholder votes, where the goal is to replace incumbent directors resistant to the dissident's agenda.^[52]^[53] In the context of acquiring controlling interest, tender offers frequently serve as the initial step in a two-step acquisition process, where the bidder first secures a majority of shares through the offer and then effects a back-end merger to acquire the remaining shares. Proxy fights complement this by providing an alternative or supplementary tactic in hostile takeovers, enabling the bidder to oust target board members who oppose the acquisition and install sympathetic directors to facilitate the deal. For instance, a bidder may launch a proxy fight to gain board control before or alongside a tender offer, thereby streamlining the path to merger approval.^[54] Key disclosure obligations underpin both mechanisms to monitor potential control accumulations. Any person or group acquiring beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a public company's voting equity securities must file Schedule 13D with the SEC within 5 business days, disclosing their identity, ownership percentage, and intentions regarding the company, particularly if they intend to influence control or engage in activism.^[55]^[56] In contrast, passive investors meeting certain criteria, such as qualified institutional or passive investors, may file the abbreviated Schedule 13G instead, with initial reporting due within 5 business days after the end of the month in which the threshold is crossed, exempting them from the more detailed activism disclosures.^[56] These filings alert the market to emerging controlling interests and trigger further regulatory scrutiny.^[55] Internationally, similar tactics exist with adapted rules; in the United Kingdom, the Takeover Panel enforces the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, which mandates that any person who acquires 30% or more of a company's voting rights must extend a general offer to all shareholders at the highest price paid in the preceding 12 months, preventing creeping control without fair treatment. This rule parallels U.S. disclosure thresholds but emphasizes mandatory offers to ensure equitable shareholder participation in control shifts.^[57]

Financial and Economic Implications

For the Controlling Shareholder

Achieving controlling interest provides the shareholder with significant strategic advantages, enabling them to steer the company's direction in alignment with their personal or organizational vision. This includes the authority to prioritize research and development initiatives, pursue expansions into new markets, or execute divestitures of underperforming assets, thereby shaping the firm's long-term trajectory without needing consensus from minority stakeholders. For instance, managers with controlling interests exercise discretion over investment projects and board appointments, which facilitates decisions like diversifying mergers that enhance competitive positioning.^[58] Founding families or original controllers frequently retain such stakes to maintain oversight on value-creating projects, as seen in industries where long investment horizons support sustained growth.^[59] Additionally, controlling interest unlocks synergies through vertical integration, allowing the controller to consolidate supply chains for cost efficiencies and greater operational control, though this requires balancing investment incentives against foregone opportunities in non-integrated structures.^[60] Financially, controllers can derive gains by influencing dividend policies to prioritize payouts that benefit their holdings, potentially accelerating returns on their investment. However, practices such as asset stripping—where corporate resources are redirected to affiliated entities—or tunneling, which involves siphoning profits through mechanisms like inflated rights offerings disguised as dividends, offer avenues for private enrichment but are heavily regulated to protect minority interests. In jurisdictions with robust safeguards, such as mandatory dividend rules in common law countries, tunneling is curtailed, limiting these gains to compliant structures.^[61] These financial maneuvers, while providing liquidity or value extraction, must navigate disclosure requirements and fairness standards to avoid legal repercussions. Controllers face notable risks, including personal liability for breaches of fiduciary duties, such as engaging in self-interested transactions without adequate process or pricing justification. Courts may impose remedies like equitable subordination of the controller's claims in distressed scenarios, effectively deprioritizing their recoveries to safeguard other stakeholders.^[62] Market backlash can manifest as reputational damage from perceived overreaching, amplified by shareholder activism that challenges control through proxy campaigns or litigation.^[63] Furthermore, regulatory interventions may compel forced divestitures if control raises competition concerns, requiring the sale of assets to restore market balance.^[64] In the long term, controlling interest bolsters bargaining power in joint ventures, where the controller's dominant position influences management control structures and negotiation outcomes, potentially leading to more favorable terms for resource allocation and risk-sharing.^[65] This enhanced leverage also permits unilateral implementation of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies, aligning the firm with sustainable practices that correlate with improved long-term value creation, such as through better stakeholder engagement and risk mitigation.^[66] Tax considerations arise prominently with controlling interest, as ownership exceeding 80% typically qualifies the entity as part of an affiliated group eligible—or in some cases required—to file consolidated federal income tax returns under U.S. law. This consolidation allows offsets of losses across group members against profits, potentially reducing overall tax liability, but it also imposes joint and several liability on the parent for the group's entire tax obligations, heightening exposure to audits and adjustments.^[67] Recent regulatory updates further refine these rules to reflect changes in corporate structures, ensuring accurate attribution of income and deductions within controlled groups.^[68]

For Minority Shareholders and the Company

Minority shareholders face significant risks when a controlling interest is established, including squeeze-out mergers where majority owners force the sale of minority stakes at potentially undervalued prices to consolidate ownership.^[69] Another common risk is share dilution through the issuance of new equity, which can reduce the minority's proportional ownership and voting power without their consent.^[70] Additionally, minority shareholders may be excluded from key decisions, such as dividend policies or strategic mergers, leading to oppression where their economic interests are subordinated to those of the controller.^[71] To mitigate these vulnerabilities, minority shareholders often rely on contractual protections like tag-along rights, which allow them to join in the sale of the company on the same terms as the controlling shareholder, preventing exclusion from lucrative exits.^[72] These rights ensure pro rata participation in transactions, safeguarding against unfair wealth transfers during ownership changes.^[73] At the company level, a controlling interest can streamline decision-making by reducing coordination costs among dispersed owners, enabling faster implementation of strategies and potentially enhancing operational efficiency.^[74] However, this concentration of power risks entrenchment, where the controller prioritizes personal benefits over long-term value, such as through excessive perks or defensive measures against takeovers.^[75] It also heightens the potential for short-termism, as controllers may focus on immediate gains to boost share prices, undermining sustained growth under strong but unchecked leadership.^[76] Valuation effects further disadvantage minority shareholders, as controlling interests typically command a premium of 20-40% over the market price of minority shares due to the added value of influence and decision rights.^[77] This premium reflects the lack of control inherent in minority positions, often resulting in lower liquidity and bargaining power for non-controlling owners during sales or disputes.^[78] Broader economic effects of controlling interests include the potential for decisive actions that drive innovation, as unified leadership can allocate resources more boldly toward R&D without shareholder gridlock.^[79] Conversely, mechanisms like freeze-outs—where minorities are cashed out—can facilitate wealth transfers from non-controllers to the majority, concentrating economic power and potentially distorting market incentives.^[80] Remedies for aggrieved minority shareholders include class action lawsuits alleging oppression, which seek damages or equitable relief to address unfair treatment.^[81] Regulatory interventions, such as SEC enforcement actions for fraudulent disclosures in controlling transactions, provide additional safeguards by imposing penalties and requiring fair dealing.^[82] These mechanisms aim to enforce fiduciary standards and protect against abusive control.^[83]

Notable Examples

Historical Acquisitions

One of the most emblematic leveraged buyouts of the 1980s was the acquisition of RJR Nabisco by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) in 1988, valued at approximately $25 billion, which exemplified the era's reliance on high-yield junk bond financing and intense proxy battles for control.^[84] The deal began as a management-led buyout proposal but escalated into a bidding war, with KKR ultimately prevailing through aggressive financing arranged via Drexel Burnham Lambert's junk bonds, marking the largest such transaction in U.S. history at the time and underscoring the vulnerabilities of corporate boards to activist shareholders.^[85] This transaction highlighted the transformative power of leveraged buyouts in shifting controlling interest to private equity firms, often through contentious shareholder votes that bypassed traditional friendly negotiations.^[86] In the late 1990s, the $81 billion merger between Exxon and Mobil in 1999 effectively restored the dominance of the original Standard Oil trust by creating the world's largest oil company, but it required unprecedented regulatory concessions to address monopoly concerns.^[87] The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mandated the divestiture of over 2,400 gasoline stations, a refinery, pipelines, and other assets across multiple U.S. regions to preserve competition in refining and marketing, representing the largest divestiture order in FTC history.^[88] This merger demonstrated how antitrust oversight could force structural remedies in controlling interest acquisitions, preventing excessive market concentration in energy sectors.^[89] The year 2000 saw two landmark cross-sector mergers that reshaped industries but exposed governance pitfalls in pursuing controlling interests. Vodafone AirTouch's hostile takeover of Mannesmann AG, completed for $183 billion, stood as the largest such bid ever, involving a fierce cross-border battle that raised significant antitrust hurdles in Europe.^[90] The European Commission conducted a six-week investigation before approval, requiring no major divestitures but scrutinizing the premium offer's impact on mobile telecom competition across the continent, ultimately allowing Vodafone to consolidate European market leadership.^[91] Similarly, the $165 billion merger of AOL and Time Warner created a media-entertainment behemoth but faltered due to integration failures, resulting in a $99 billion write-down by 2002 and revelations of flawed governance in valuing internet synergies over traditional assets.^[92] These deals illustrated the risks of overambitious premiums and cultural clashes in hostile or merger-driven controlling interest shifts.^[93] Collectively, these 1980s and 1990s acquisitions, including RJR Nabisco's buyout and the Exxon-Mobil union, intensified scrutiny of merger processes, prompting amendments to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act that enhanced pre-merger notification thresholds and review timelines for stricter antitrust evaluations.^[94] The surge in megadeals during this period revealed gaps in early detection of competitive harms, leading to 1990s refinements that expanded FTC and DOJ authority to demand more detailed filings and divestitures upfront.^[95]

Contemporary Cases

In the digital era, controlling interest acquisitions have increasingly targeted technology and media sectors, reflecting heightened scrutiny from regulators amid concerns over market concentration and data privacy. From 2010 onward, high-profile deals have demonstrated the use of substantial financing, activist pressures, and concessions to secure majority stakes, often transforming corporate governance and operations.^[96] A prominent example is Elon Musk's 2022 acquisition of Twitter, valued at $44 billion, which began with Musk disclosing a 9.2% stake on April 4, 2022, making him the largest shareholder.^[97] Musk subsequently offered $54.20 per share in a cash tender offer, leading to a merger agreement approved by Twitter's board on April 25, 2022, despite initial resistance that characterized the bid as contentious.^[98] The deal closed on October 27, 2022, after Musk secured $46.5 billion in financing, including loans and equity commitments, and involved extensive SEC filings detailing the transaction structure.^[99] Post-acquisition, Musk overhauled governance by rebranding the company as X Corp. in 2023 and implementing sweeping changes to board composition and content policies, consolidating his controlling interest.^[100] Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 2023 exemplifies regulatory hurdles in the gaming industry, where controlling interest can amplify market dominance in interactive entertainment. Announced in January 2022, the deal faced opposition from antitrust authorities, particularly in the UK and EU, over concerns about cloud gaming monopolization.^[101] To gain approval, Microsoft restructured the transaction in August 2023, agreeing to divest streaming rights for Activision's content to Ubisoft for 10 years in the UK and EEA, addressing competition worries.^[102] The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) cleared the merger on October 13, 2023, following similar EU approval, enabling Microsoft to complete the acquisition and integrate Activision's assets like Call of Duty under its control.^[103] Broadcom's $61 billion acquisition of VMware, finalized in November 2023, highlights control premiums in enterprise software, where acquiring a majority stake enhances technological synergies in virtualization and cloud infrastructure. The deal, initially announced in May 2022 as a mix of cash and stock, underwent prolonged regulatory reviews by the US Federal Trade Commission and China's State Administration for Market Regulation, focusing on potential anticompetitive effects in semiconductors and software.^[104] Broadcom projected $8.5 billion in additional pro forma EBITDA within three years post-closing, emphasizing cost synergies from the merger.^[104] Upon completion on November 22, 2023, VMware's stock ceased trading on the NYSE, and Broadcom assumed full operational control, leading to portfolio rationalizations and a shift toward subscription-based models.^[105] Activist interventions have also shaped contemporary controlling interests without full takeovers, as seen in Elliott Management's 2019 campaign at AT&T. In September 2019, Elliott acquired a $3.2 billion stake, representing about 1.2% of shares, and urged the board to divest non-core assets like WarnerMedia to unlock value and reach a $60 per share target.^[106] The pressure resulted in concessions, including an asset review that facilitated the 2022 spin-off of WarnerMedia to Discovery and increased dividends, alongside separating the CEO and chairman roles upon Randall Stephenson's departure in 2020.^[107] Elliott exited its position by 2020, having influenced strategic shifts that enhanced shareholder value without achieving outright control.^[108] In March 2025, Elon Musk's xAI merged with X (formerly Twitter) in an all-stock transaction valued at $113 billion, further consolidating Musk's controlling interest across AI and social media platforms. The deal valued xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion (after accounting for debt), integrating X's data resources to advance xAI's generative AI development while raising questions about data privacy and market concentration in AI-driven tech ecosystems.^[109] Emerging trends since 2010 include the surge in special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) for rapid control of public entities, peaking in 2020-2021 before regulatory tightening, with a 2025 resurgence driven by institutional sponsors targeting tech firms for de-SPAC mergers.^[110] Private equity has fueled take-private deals, with global transaction values reaching $250 billion in large-scale acquisitions in 2024, often securing controlling interests through leveraged buyouts in mature sectors.^[111] By 2025, AI regulations, such as the EU's AI Act, are influencing merger reviews for tech deals involving AI capabilities, with ongoing antitrust scrutiny under frameworks like the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act potentially requiring divestitures to mitigate risks of concentrated control in generative technologies.^[112]

References

[1]
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/controllinginterest.asp
[2]
RCW 82.45.033: "Controlling interest" defined. - | WA.gov
The term "controlling interest" has the following meaning: (a) In the case of a profit corporation, either fifty percent or more of the total combined voting ...
[3]
Corporate Governance – Level 1 Listing Rules - SEC.gov
“Controlling Shares” means the stake of shares giving its holder or holders the ability to exercise, directly or indirectly, the individual and/or shared ...
[4]
Rule 144: Selling Restricted and Control Securities - SEC.gov
Jan 15, 2013 · Control securities are those held by an affiliate of the issuing company. An affiliate is a person, such as an executive officer, a director or ...
[5]
7.2 Voting interest model–corporations and similar entities
For entities that are not VIEs, the usual condition for a controlling financial interest is ownership of over 50% of the outstanding voting shares. Under the ...
[6]
https://www.fasb.org/page/PageContent?pageId=/reference-library/superseded-standards/summary-of-statement-no-167.html&bcpath=tf
[7]
[PDF] Financial reporting developments: Consolidation - EY
Aug 22, 2025 · ... majority voting interest is the determining factor for a controlling financial interest. ... US GAAP: (1) the Variable Interest Model and ...
[8]
The different types and methods of mergers and acquisitions
A share acquisition is when one company acquires all interest or a controlling interest in the stock of a corporation by directly buying the shares from the ...
[9]
7.1 Common control transactions - PwC Viewpoint
A “controlling financial interest” is generally defined as ownership of a majority ... Acquisition of a noncontrolling interest in a common control transaction.
[10]
Controlling Interest: What It Is, Advantages, Examples - Investopedia
A controlling interest lets an investor increase their stake during a merger or acquisition. For example, in a strategic merger that involves a share swap, the ...What Is a Controlling Interest? · Benefits & Influence Gained
[11]
Controlling interest - Oxford Reference
A controlling interest is an interest in a company that gives control, usually requiring more than half the voting shares, but can be less if shares are ...
[12]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1352605
[13]
[PDF] When did Ownership Separate from Control? Corporate ...
In particular, Berle and Means claim that in the early nineteenth century, ownership and control were indeed unified, and they distin- guish the corporations ...
[14]
Price Differentials Between Voting and Nonvoting Stock | Stout
... nonvoting stock is often confused with the value differential resulting from maintaining a controlling interest in a business relative to a minority interest.
[15]
Shareholder Preferences and Shareholder Democracy
Dec 10, 2024 · In corporate governance, shareholder democracy refers to the mechanisms through which shareholders influence corporate decision-making.
[16]
5.3.5 De facto control - PwC Viewpoint
Jun 26, 2024 · EX 26.70.2 – Ownership of less than 50% of voting rights with dispersed shareholding · EX 26.70.3 – Ownership of less than 50% of voting ...
[17]
Supervoters and Stocks: What Investors Should Know About Dual ...
Jun 6, 2022 · The dual-class structure allows them to exercise disproportionate control over the company by allowing multiple votes for every share owned.
[18]
[PDF] The Separation of Voting and Control: The Role of Contract in ...
The default rules of corporate law make shareholders' control rights a function of their voting power. Whether a director is elected or a merger.
[19]
Poison Pill: A Defense Strategy and Shareholder Rights Plan
A poison pill is a defense strategy that a board of directors may use to try to keep control when a public company experiences an unwelcome takeover bid.Missing: factors influencing dispersion quorum
[20]
[PDF] Control and Consolidation Under ASC 810 - BDO USA
The core principle in ASC 810 is that a reporting entity consolidates a legal entity when it has a controlling financial interest in that entity. The purpose of ...
[21]
Controller Confusion: Realigning Controlling Stockholders and ...
Mar 10, 2020 · Under Delaware law, a controlling stockholder is a stockholder who either (1) controls a majority of the company's voting power or (2) exercises ...
[22]
[PDF] Independent Directors and Controlling Shareholders
Under existing arrangements, controlling shareholders normally play a decisive role in the appointment and retention of independent directors. Even independent ...
[23]
Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Levien :: 1971 :: Delaware Supreme ... - Justia Law
This standard will be applied only when the fiduciary duty is accompanied by self-dealing the situation when a parent is on both sides of a transaction with its ...
[24]
[PDF] 1 DUTIES OF CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDERS Murky Waters
Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Levien,. 280 A.2d 717, 723 (Del. 1971).1. 1 Sinclair Oil is a seminal case on the duty of loyalty of controlling stockholders that ...
[25]
[PDF] The Fiduciary Duty of Majority Shareholders in Freezeout Mergers
In freezeout mergers, majority shareholders may have a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders, with a burden to prove the merger's fairness.Missing: cumulative doctrine<|separator|>
[26]
Appraisal Rights and "Fair Value" - Cardozo Law Review
Second, consistent with the legislative purpose of appraisal rights, courts protect minority shareholders from exploitation by the majority, where exploitation ...
[27]
Is It the End of Entire Fairness as We Know It? - CLS Blue Sky Blog
Dec 12, 2023 · Under Corwin, “when a transaction not subject to the entire fairness standard is approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote of the ...Missing: cumulative | Show results with:cumulative
[28]
Delaware Supreme Court Reaffirms Business Judgment Rule ...
Jun 24, 2024 · The Supreme Court held that the business judgment rule applies to controlling stockholder transactions only if the transaction is negotiated and approved by an ...
[29]
52012DC0347 - EN - EUR-Lex
The Takeover Bids Directive contains minimum guidelines for the conduct of takeover bids, including disclosure, involving securities with voting rights of ...
[30]
17 CFR § 229.404 - (Item 404) Transactions with related persons ...
17 CFR § 229.404 requires disclosure of transactions over $120,000 with related persons, including their names, interests, and transaction values.
[31]
Item 404 of Regulation S-K - Transactions with Related Persons ...
Aug 9, 2007 · Is disclosure required of such a transaction that occurred since the beginning of the registrant's last fiscal year, but prior to the date the ...
[32]
Current Thresholds | Federal Trade Commission
Subsection of 7A, Original jurisdictional threshold, 2025 Adjusted jurisdictional threshold ; 7A(a)(2)(A), $200 million, $505.8 million ; 7A(a)(2)(B)(i), $50 ...
[33]
The Antitrust Laws - Federal Trade Commission
Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.Guide to Antitrust Laws · Mergers · The Enforcers · Dealings with Competitors
[34]
Mergers Overview - Competition - European Union
EU merger policy aims to prevent harmful effects on competition. Mergers are examined at the European level, and may be approved or prohibited based on their ...
[35]
Mergers Legislation - Competition - European Union
The Merger Regulation contains the main rules for the assessment of concentrations, whereas the Implementing Regulation concerns procedural issues (notification ...
[36]
Anti-monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China
Feb 24, 2021 · This Law is enacted for the purpose of preventing and restraining monopolistic conducts, protecting fair market competition, enhancing economic efficiency.
[37]
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index - Antitrust Division - Department of Justice
Jan 17, 2024 · The HHI is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the resulting numbers.Missing: EC | Show results with:EC
[38]
[PDF] Merger Guidelines [2023] - Federal Trade Commission
Dec 18, 2023 · The Agencies generally measure concentration levels using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. (“HHI”).12 The HHI is defined as the sum of the ...Missing: EC | Show results with:EC
[39]
Procedures - Competition Policy - European Commission
In principle, the Commission only examines larger mergers with an EU dimension that reach certain turnover thresholds (See Article 1 of the EU Merger Regulation):.
[40]
Mergers | Federal Trade Commission
Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions when the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly ...Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
[41]
Microsoft/Activision Blizzard, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc.
[42]
Commission clears acquisition of Activision Blizzard
The European Commission has approved, under the EU Merger Regulation, the proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard ('Activision') by Microsoft.
[43]
Telecoms and national security rules | CMS Network sharing 5
Sep 25, 2024 · In addition to this sector-specific focus, telecoms operators also need to consider whether their role in military, public services, or ...
[44]
2025 EU Antitrust, FSR and FDI Update - Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Jan 16, 2025 · The EU continues to consider additional changes to the EU FDI Screening Regulation, with a view to harmonizing national screening rules. The ...
[45]
Hostile Takeovers vs. Friendly Takeovers: What's the Difference?
Most takeovers are friendly, but hostile takeovers and activist campaigns have become more popular lately with the risk of activist hedge funds.
[46]
Friendly Takeovers vs Hostile Takeovers - Corporate Finance Institute
The difference between a friendly and hostile takeover is solely in the manner in which the company is taken over. In a friendly takeover, the target company's ...
[47]
What Is a White Knight? Definition and Role in Acquisitions
A white knight is a hostile takeover defense. A friendly company purchases the target company instead of the unfriendly bidder in a white knight situation.What Is a White Knight? · How It Works · White vs. Other Knights · Knight vs. Squire
[48]
[PDF] Hostile Takeovers in the 1980s: The Return to Corporate ...
HOSTILE TAKEOVERS invite strong reactions, both positive and negative, from academics as well as the general public. Yet fairly little is known.
[49]
Who Is Carl Icahn? Net Worth, Holdings, and Biggest Activist Battles
Jul 26, 2025 · One of the most famous examples of Icahn's corporate raiding was his hostile takeover of TWA in 1985. He acquired a controlling stake in the ...
[50]
[PDF] Tender Offers - SEC.gov
Apr 4, 2025 · These actions implement the present statutory requirements by providing specific filing and disclosure requirements, optional dissemination.
[51]
Proxy Rules and Schedules 14A/14C - SEC.gov
The Rule 14a-19(b) notice must contain only the names of nominees for whom the dissident shareholder intends to solicit proxies. The purpose of this requirement ...
[52]
[PDF] Exemptions from the Proxy Rules for Proxy Voting Advice - SEC.gov
Jul 22, 2020 · corporate proxy is the principal means by which shareholders exercise their voting rights. The development of issuer,.
[53]
https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2020/34-89372.pdf
[54]
Schedules 13D and 13G - Investor.gov
Depending upon the facts and circumstances, the person or group of persons may be eligible to file the more abbreviated Schedule 13G in lieu of Schedule 13D. ...
[55]
Exchange Act Sections 13(d) and 13(g) and Regulation 13D-G ...
The security holder must file the Schedule 13G within 45 days after the end of calendar quarter in which the class of securities was registered. Note that the ...
[56]
https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/staff-guidance/compliance-disclosure-interpretations/exchange-act-sections-13d-13g-regulation-13d-g-beneficial-ownership-reporting
[57]
[PDF] Benefits of control, managerial ownership, and the stock returns of ...
This article examines how the benefits to managers of corporate control affect the relationship between managerial ownership and the stock returns of ...Missing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
[58]
[PDF] Family Control of Firms and Industries
Founders and their families are more likely to retain control when doing so gives the firm a competitive advantage, thereby benefiting all shareholders. In ...
[59]
On synergies and vertical integration - ScienceDirect.com
A basic trade-off arises: While non-integration leads to higher investment incentives, potential synergies are foregone.Missing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
[60]
Tunneling Dividends
### Summary of Tunneling Dividends
[61]
Controller's Breach of Fiduciary Duties Leads To Novel Remedy
Apr 15, 2025 · Following the acquisition, those challenges became worse, as regulatory scrutiny of the Company's claim submissions increased. Dura Medic needed ...Missing: liability backlash forced activist
[62]
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/04/15/controllers-breach-of-fiduciary-duties-leads-to-novel-remedy/
[63]
Evaluating the impact of divestitures on competition: Evidence from ...
Asset divestitures play a key role in antitrust and competition policy. There is limited empirical evidence of their impacts on market outcomes. •. We ...
[64]
Bargaining Power, Management Control, and Performance in United ...
The bargaining power of potential partners affects the structure of management control in a joint venture, which affects venture performance. Several informal ...
[65]
From responsibility to value: ESG and long-term corporate value - NIH
Apr 23, 2025 · This paper analyzes the correlation between ESG performance and firms' long-term value using data from 4,185 listed companies in China's A-share ...Missing: bargaining unilateral
[66]
26 CFR Part 1 - Consolidated Tax Liability - eCFR
This section applies to consolidated return years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, for which the return is due (without extensions) after June 22, 2012.Missing: considerations | Show results with:considerations
[67]
Revising Consolidated Return Regulations and Controlled Group of ...
Dec 30, 2024 · This document contains final regulations that affect affiliated groups of corporations that file consolidated Federal income tax returns.
[68]
[PDF] HOW TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS
A “squeeze out” merger is another common method that majority shareholders use to force minority shareholders to sell their ownership interests in a company. In ...
[69]
Shareholder Risks in Mergers and Acquisitions - Robins Kaplan LLP
Risks include share dilution, loss of voting rights, and loss of family interest. Fiduciary duty violations and common-control mergers can also cause issues.Missing: squeeze- out decisions
[70]
Shareholder Oppression Explained | Chicago Business Litigation ...
Shareholder oppression occurs when minority shareholders are denied their rights, or when majority shareholders act unfairly, such as diverting profits or ...Missing: dilution exclusion
[71]
Understanding Tag-Along vs. Drag-Along Rights in Business Deals
Tag-along rights allow minority shareholders to sell their shares on the same terms as majority shareholders, offering protection in a sale. · Drag-along rights ...Tag-Along Rights Pros and Cons · Comparing Tag-Along Rights...
[72]
Shareholder Agreement: Tag-Along Rights | Practical Law - Westlaw
The principal purpose of these clauses is to protect minority shareholders by giving them the right to participate on a pro rata basis in a controlling ...
[73]
[PDF] The Mythical Benefits of Shareholder Control
Perhaps the most obvious is promoting more efficient and informed business decisionmaking. It is difficult and expensive to arrange for thousands of dispersed ...
[74]
Controlling shareholder entrenchment: Bonuses versus dividends
Controlling shareholders often have an excess of control rights over cash flow rights through the use of cross-shareholdings, pyramid structures, and ...
[75]
[PDF] The missing role of controlling share- holders in the short-termism ...
4.3 Empirical evidence on controlling shareholder short-termism. Unfortunately, the impact of controlling shareholders on corporate short-termism has received.
[76]
Control Premium - Financial Edge
Oct 9, 2020 · On average, the control premium usually ranges between 20%-40% over the unaffected share price (the price for a minority stake with no control).
[77]
Control Premium - Guide, Examples, Reasons for Takeover Premium
Control premium is the amount paid above a company's fair market value to gain controlling ownership, often 20-30% but sometimes up to 70%.Missing: 20-40% | Show results with:20-40%
[78]
Controlling Shareholders and Innovation: Evidence From Trademark ...
Oct 29, 2025 · In this study, we investigate the role of controlling shareholders in promoting corporate innovation. The effect of a controlling shareholder ...
[79]
[PDF] Shareholder Wealth Effects and Bid Negotiation in Freeze-Out Deals
This paper examines the shareholder wealth effects of bids by controlling shareholders seeking to acquire the remaining minority equity stake in a firm – deals ...Missing: innovation | Show results with:innovation
[80]
Minority Shareholder Oppression Claims and Remedies
This Note also discusses various remedies the shareholder may seek, including judicial dissolution, a fair value buyout of their stock in the corporation, ...
[81]
SEC Charges Revlon with Misleading Shareholders in Going ...
Jun 21, 2013 · An SEC investigation found that during a voluntary exchange offer to satisfy a significant debt to its controlling shareholder, Revlon engaged ...Missing: interest | Show results with:interest
[82]
[PDF] Protection of Minority Shareholders in Listed Issuers - IOSCO
Minority shareholders should be protected from abusive actions by, or in the interest of, controlling shareholders acting either directly or indirectly; and ...
[83]
RJR Nabisco Scandal: Corporate Kleptocracy Exposed - Investopedia
In 1988, RJR Nabisco was acquired in a $25 billion leveraged buyout (LBO) by KKR, marking one of the largest LBOs in U.S. history. The RJR Nabisco LBO ...Missing: proxy | Show results with:proxy
[84]
$$24.5-Billion Bid Wins RJR Nabisco : Record Offer From Buyout ...
Dec 1, 1988 · $24.5-Billion Bid Wins RJR Nabisco : Record Offer From Buyout Specialist Ends Nation's Biggest Takeover Battle. By PAUL RICHTER. Dec. 1, 1988 12 ...Missing: proxy | Show results with:proxy
[85]
Barbarians at the Gate: contrasting fortunes for those closest to the ...
Michael Milken's Drexel Burnham Lambert transformed the corporate finance landscape in the 1980s, and provided the junk bonds to finance KKR's buyout of RJR ...
[86]
Exxon/Mobil Agree to Largest FTC Divestiture Ever in Order to Settle ...
Nov 30, 1999 · The FTC alleged that the acquisition would significantly injure competition in the markets for refining and marketing of gasoline in the United ...
[87]
Exxon Corporation and Mobil Corporation
Exxon/Mobil agree to largest FTC divestiture ever in order to settle FTC antitrust charges; settlement requires extensive restructuring.
[88]
FTC Approves Merger of Giants Exxon, Mobil - Los Angeles Times
Dec 1, 1999 · The Federal Trade Commission approved the $80-billion merger of Exxon Corp. and Mobil Corp. on Tuesday, but only after extracting record ...
[89]
Vodafone Acquires Mannesmann in the Largest Acquisition in History
On February 4, 2000, Britain's Vodafone AirTouch PLC acquires Mannesmann AG in a historic deal that will reshape the mobile telecom marketplace.
[90]
https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/history/moments/2000-vodafone-mannesmann-merger
[91]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB955545917864176294
[92]
AOL Time Warner and the False God of Shareholder Primacy - SSRN
Aug 8, 2005 · The failure of the merger between these two opposites, ending in the ultimate ascendancy of Time Warner executives, is instructive. Those ...
[93]
Reflections on 20 Years of Merger Enforcement under the Hart-Scott ...
Premerger notification under HSR has dramatically changed the way the antitrust agencies conduct merger enforcement, and both consumers and the business ...
[94]
[PDF] Twenty Years of Merger Enforcement at the Federal Trade ...
... HSR statistics shows that merger activity originally declined after the crest of the. 1980s merger wave, and recovered to set new highs in the mid 1990s.
[95]
Global Private Markets Report 2025 - McKinsey
May 20, 2025 · In McKinsey's latest annual Global Private Markets Report we look at some of the biggest trends shaping private equity in 2025 and beyond.Missing: SPACs 2010-2025
[96]
Musk begins his Twitter ownership with firings, declares the 'bird is ...
Oct 28, 2022 · It began on April 4, when Musk disclosed a 9.2% Twitter stake, becoming the company's largest shareholder.
[97]
EX-99.1 - SEC.gov
On April 25, 2022, Musk, acting through and with his solely-owned entities, Parent and Acquisition Sub, agreed to buy Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, for ...
[98]
Elon Musk says he has lined up $46.5 billion in financing for Twitter ...
Apr 21, 2022 · Elon Musk on Thursday said he has lined up commitments worth $46.5 billion to finance a Twitter takeover deal, one week after he first made ...
[99]
Elon Musk Completes $44 Billion Deal to Own Twitter
Oct 27, 2022 · Musk balances investing in the company's future and paying off interest on the $12.5 billion in loans he took out to finance the deal. Analysts ...Missing: details controlling
[100]
Microsoft closes $69 billion Activision deal after Britain's nod - Reuters
Oct 13, 2023 · UK regulator CMA had blocked the acquisition in April; Microsoft agreed to sell streaming rights to win approval; CMA says 'sticking to its ...
[101]
Microsoft and Activision Blizzard Restructure Proposed Acquisition
Aug 21, 2023 · Since our initial announcement with Activision Blizzard in January last year, we have endeavored to earn regulatory approval for the ...
[102]
Microsoft-Activision Blizzard takeover approved by UK regulator CMA
Oct 13, 2023 · Britain's top competition watchdog on Friday gave the green light to Microsoft's proposed $69 billion takeover of gaming firm Activision Blizzard.
[103]
Broadcom to Acquire VMware for Approximately $61 Billion in Cash ...
May 26, 2022 · Broadcom to target adding approximately $8.5 billion of pro forma EBITDA from the acquisition within three years post-closing.
[104]
Broadcom Completes Acquisition of VMware
Nov 22, 2023 · It has completed its acquisition of VMware, Inc. VMware's common stock will now cease to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
[105]
AT&T jumps after Elliott takes $3 billion stake, sees stock at $60
Sep 9, 2019 · The activist investor announces it owns $3.2 billion of AT&T stock and says the company could be worth at least $60 per share.Missing: campaign outcome
[106]
Big changes are coming to AT&T after shareholder battle - CNN
Oct 28, 2019 · For example, Elliott Management said AT&T has agreed to separate the CEO and chairman roles once Stephenson steps down. Elliott had been pushing ...Missing: outcome | Show results with:outcome
[107]
AT&T C.E.O. to Stay Another Year After Challenge From Activist Fund
Oct 29, 2019 · In September, Elliott Management asked the company to stop striking new acquisitions, to increase dividends and share buybacks and to improve ...Missing: outcome | Show results with:outcome
[108]
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/elliott-exits-att-after-waging-fight-2019-starboard-exits-ebay-2020-11-17/
[109]
Private Equity Outlook 2025: Is a Recovery Starting to Take Shape?
Mar 3, 2025 · P2P deals increased to close to $250 billion globally in 2024 and represented almost 50% of deals valued at $5 billion or more in North America ...Missing: SPACs | Show results with:SPACs
[110]
https://arc-group.com/resurgence-spacs-2025/