Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Hostile takeover

A hostile takeover is an acquisition strategy in which a bidder attempts to gain control of a target company without the consent of its board of directors or management, typically by purchasing a majority of shares directly from shareholders via open market purchases, tender offers, or proxy contests to replace incumbent directors.^[1]^[2]^[3]
These transactions surged in prominence during the 1980s, facilitated by high-yield "junk" bond financing and leveraged buyouts, which enabled raiders to challenge entrenched corporate leadership and reverse conglomerate diversification strategies that had proliferated in prior decades.^[4]^[5] Notable examples include InBev's 2008 $52 billion acquisition of Anheuser-Busch after an initial unfriendly bid, and Oracle's protracted 2003-2005 campaign to acquire PeopleSoft, culminating in a $10.3 billion deal amid antitrust scrutiny.^[6]^[7]
Hostile takeovers serve as a mechanism in the market for corporate control, potentially disciplining underperforming management by threatening removal, though empirical analyses reveal targets often exhibit characteristics like unrelated diversification rather than outright poor profitability, with post-acquisition outcomes including asset sales, cost reductions, and occasional employment declines but net shareholder wealth gains in many cases.^[8]^[4]^[5] Defenses such as poison pills, staggered boards, and white knights have evolved to counter bids, reducing their frequency since the 1990s, yet they persist as tools for reallocating capital toward higher-value uses.^[9]^[10]

Definition and Process

Core Concept and Distinctions

A hostile takeover is an acquisition strategy in which the bidding company attempts to gain control of a target company without the consent or cooperation of the target's board of directors or management, typically by directly soliciting shares from the target's shareholders through a public tender offer or open-market purchases. This approach bypasses the target's leadership, which often views the bid as undervalued or contrary to long-term interests, leading to active opposition such as defensive measures or public campaigns against the offer.^[3]^[2]^[11] In contrast, a friendly takeover involves negotiation and approval from the target's board, enabling shared due diligence, structured deal terms, and reduced adversarial costs, as both parties collaborate toward completion. Hostile bids generally require a higher premium—often 20-30% above market price—to incentivize shareholders to tender shares despite management resistance, reflecting the added friction and uncertainty. This distinction underscores a core tension in corporate governance: the principal-agent problem, where management may prioritize entrenchment over shareholder value maximization.^[12]^[13] Hostile takeovers differ from other acquisition tactics like proxy contests, which seek to replace board members to facilitate a deal, or creeping tender offers that accumulate shares gradually to avoid immediate scrutiny; the defining feature remains the unsolicited nature and direct appeal to shareholders, regulated under frameworks such as the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission's Williams Act of 1968, which imposes disclosure requirements for stakes over 5% and tender offer timelines to ensure informed shareholder decisions. While friendly mergers preserve operational continuity, hostile ones can impose sudden leadership changes, potentially unlocking value from underperforming assets but risking disruption to strategy and employee morale.^[14]^[15]^[16]

Acquisition Mechanisms

In hostile takeovers, acquirers bypass the target company's board and management by directly soliciting shares from shareholders to achieve a controlling interest, typically requiring acquisition of at least 50% of voting shares. The primary mechanisms include tender offers, proxy contests, and gradual open-market accumulations, each designed to exploit shareholder incentives such as premiums over market prices while navigating regulatory requirements like those under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Williams Act of 1968.^[1]^[2]^[3] A tender offer constitutes the most direct acquisition method, wherein the bidder publicly announces an offer to purchase a specified number or percentage of the target's outstanding shares at a fixed price, often at a 20-40% premium to the prevailing market value, for a defined acceptance period of 20 business days or more. This approach pressures shareholders to tender their shares en masse, as the offer is conditional on reaching a threshold (e.g., 51% acceptance) to ensure control, and non-tendering holders risk minority status post-acquisition. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules mandate prompt disclosure of the offer terms, bidder intentions, and financing sources to prevent abusive practices, with mini-tender offers (below 5% of shares) exempt from full regulation but still subject to antifraud provisions.^[1]^[3]^[17] Proxy contests, or proxy fights, serve as an alternative or complementary mechanism by enabling the bidder—who often first acquires a toehold stake of 5-10% via open-market purchases—to solicit shareholder proxies to elect a slate of bidder-nominated directors at the annual meeting or a special meeting. Success grants board control, allowing the new directors to approve a merger or dismantle defenses, though this method alone rarely confers outright ownership without subsequent share purchases. Proxy fights involve intensive campaigns via proxy statements filed with the SEC, detailing dissident proposals and urging votes against incumbents, with outcomes hinging on retail and institutional shareholder turnout, where activists target underperforming firms to unlock value.^[18]^[19]^[3] Creeping acquisitions, also termed creeping tender offers, involve stealthy, incremental purchases of shares on the open market or through private negotiations to amass a controlling bloc over time, avoiding the immediate publicity and higher costs of a full tender offer. This tactic exploits regulatory thresholds, such as SEC Schedule 13D filings required only upon crossing 5% ownership (with updates for material changes), allowing bidders to build stakes below disclosure triggers while monitoring market reactions. Once a substantial position (e.g., 20-30%) is secured, the acquirer may escalate to a tender offer or proxy fight, though antitrust scrutiny intensifies if competition concerns arise.^[20]^[21]^[22]

Historical Evolution

Pre-1980s Origins

The origins of hostile takeovers trace to the mid-20th century, primarily in the United Kingdom and the United States, where they emerged as mechanisms to circumvent incumbent management and appeal directly to shareholders amid evolving corporate governance norms.^[23] In the UK, the first successful instance occurred in 1953 when investor Charles Clore acquired J. Sears & Co., a leading shoe retailer and department store operator, for £4.5 million through a bid that ignored the board's opposition and targeted shareholders directly.^[24]^[25] Clore's strategy capitalized on post-World War II regulatory reforms, including those from the Cohen Committee in 1950, which eased share transfers and disclosure requirements, enabling such unsolicited bids despite initial resistance from targets like Sears.^[26] In the United States, hostile tactics initially manifested in the 1950s via proxy contests, where insurgents sought to replace directors to gain control, rather than outright tender offers.^[27] By the mid-1960s, cash tender offers supplanted proxies as the dominant hostile method, allowing bidders to purchase shares directly from dispersed owners at a premium, bypassing boards during the conglomerate merger wave.^[23]^[28] These early US efforts, though numbering fewer than a dozen annually, often involved undervalued firms in industries like manufacturing and utilities, with bidders exploiting market inefficiencies to enforce discipline on underperforming management.^[28] Throughout the 1970s, hostile activity remained sporadic in the US, constrained by state-level defenses, limited institutional ownership (under 10% of equities in the 1960s), and judicial skepticism toward unsolicited bids, as seen in cases challenging tender offers under fiduciary duties.^[29] Economic analyses from the era, such as Henry Manne's 1965 framework of a "market for corporate control," provided theoretical justification, positing that hostile bids corrected agency problems by reallocating assets from inefficient stewards.^[30] Yet empirical incidence stayed low—averaging under 5% of mergers—due to high premiums required (often 20-30% above market price) and targets' recourse to "white knight" allies or litigation.^[31] This pre-1980s phase laid groundwork for later surges by demonstrating viability in Anglo-American markets with liquid shares, though cultural and legal barriers tempered frequency compared to the subsequent decade's explosion.^[32]

1980s Boom and Iconic Raiders

The 1980s marked a surge in hostile takeover activity, with the number of such bids peaking amid broader merger mania fueled by economic deregulation, favorable tax policies, and innovations in high-yield debt financing. Under the Reagan administration, antitrust enforcement relaxed, enabling larger deals, while the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act enhanced debt deductibility for interest payments, incentivizing leveraged buyouts (LBOs).^[33]^[34] Stock market undervaluation in the early decade made targets appear cheap relative to their asset values, prompting raiders to exploit discrepancies between market prices and intrinsic worth.^[35] By 1987, successful hostile takeovers totaled 15 deals valued at $12.8 billion, comprising 7.7% of all merger activity that year.^[36] A pivotal enabler was the junk bond market, pioneered by Drexel Burnham Lambert and Michael Milken, which grew from $10 billion outstanding in 1979 to $189 billion by 1989, providing non-bank financing for aggressive bids.^[37] These high-yield securities allowed raiders to amass capital without traditional bank syndication, bypassing target management resistance and funding LBOs where acquired firms' cash flows serviced the debt.^[38] Hostile bids often targeted underperforming conglomerates, with acquirers breaking them up to realize higher standalone values, aligning with market discipline against entrenched management. Empirical analyses of 1980s hostiles indicate they frequently boosted operating efficiency and shareholder returns post-acquisition, countering narratives of mere asset-stripping.^[39] Prominent raiders epitomized this era's aggression. Carl Icahn, leveraging Drexel junk bonds, orchestrated high-profile hostiles like his 1985 takeover of Trans World Airlines (TWA) for $469 million, later liquidating assets to repay debts and distribute proceeds to shareholders.^[40] T. Boone Pickens, an oil magnate, targeted energy firms including a 1984 bid for Gulf Oil (thwarted but yielding $100 million greenmail profit) and a successful Unocal proxy fight, amassing stakes to force restructurings or sales.^[41] Other figures like Victor Posner and Saul Steinberg pursued undervalued targets, using toehold positions to launch tenders and extract premiums, though outcomes varied with regulatory scrutiny and market volatility culminating in the 1987 crash.^[42] These actors, often derided as "barbarians," catalyzed a shift toward shareholder primacy, with hostile activity declining sharply after scandals tainted junk bond viability.^[43]

1990s Decline and Barriers

The frequency of hostile takeover bids in the United States declined markedly during the 1990s compared to the 1980s peak, with hostile deals comprising approximately 14 percent of mergers in the earlier decade but falling to around 4 percent in the 1990s.^[44] This shift was evident in both the absolute number of bids and their proportion relative to friendly acquisitions; for instance, hostile bids accounted for 27.3 percent of deals from 1985 to 1989, dropping to 22.5 percent from 1990 to 1994.^[8] Nearly half of major U.S. firms faced hostile bids in the 1980s, a phenomenon that largely dissipated by the decade's end, with tender offer rates and success rates for hostiles plummeting from 1989 through mid-1993.^[45]^[9] A primary financial catalyst for this decline was the collapse of the high-yield "junk" bond market following the 1989 bankruptcy of Drexel Burnham Lambert, which had financed many leveraged buyouts and hostile raids through such debt instruments.^[23] Without access to cheap, high-leverage financing, acquirers found it harder to fund premiums over market prices, reducing the viability of unsolicited bids. Concurrently, buoyant equity markets in the 1990s elevated stock valuations, diminishing opportunities to target undervalued firms—a key precondition for profitable hostiles—and rendering cash-heavy bids less attractive amid rising interest rates.^[45] Defensive measures adopted by target companies further entrenched barriers, as boards preemptively implemented shareholder rights plans (commonly known as "poison pills") and staggered board structures to deter unsolicited offers. These tactics, validated by court rulings and widespread adoption by the early 1990s, allowed targets to dilute hostile bidders' stakes or delay control shifts, making successful takeovers costlier and rarer. State-level legislation amplified these defenses; by 1990, over 40 states had enacted anti-takeover statutes, including control share acquisition laws that required shareholder approval for large stakes and business combination moratoriums prohibiting mergers post-acquisition for several years. The U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 upholding of Indiana's control share statute in CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America legitimized such measures, prompting a wave of similar laws that fragmented the market for corporate control without federal preemption.^[46] Improved internal corporate governance also contributed to the retreat from hostiles, as enhanced board oversight and incentive alignments in the 1990s reduced managerial entrenchment and the perceived need for external market discipline via takeovers. While some analysts argued this evolution supplanted hostile activity with friendlier mergers, empirical evidence links the barriers' proliferation to a sustained drop in bid frequency, with unsolicited offers numbering around 97 in 1995 and 73 in 1996—far below 1980s volumes.^[45]^[47]

2000s Resurgence and Recent Trends (to 2025)

The 2000s marked a partial resurgence of hostile takeovers following the 1990s decline, driven by post-dot-com bubble undervaluations and financial market volatility that made targets appear cheap relative to bids. A landmark example was Vodafone's $183 billion acquisition of Mannesmann AG, initiated with a hostile bid in November 1999 and completed in February 2000, representing the largest hostile takeover to date and highlighting cross-border aggression in telecommunications.^[48] In the United States, hostile activity spiked amid the 2008 financial crisis, with bids more than doubling year-to-date to a record level by September, as acquirers capitalized on depressed stock prices and weakened defenses.^[49] This period saw approximately 15 successful U.S. hostile deals in 2007 alone, accounting for a notable share of total merger volume, though overall numbers remained below 1980s peaks due to entrenched defenses like poison pills.^[36] The 2010s witnessed a sharp decline in hostile bids, with fewer than 15 unsolicited offers annually for U.S. targets by 2019, attributed to robust board defenses, shareholder activism favoring negotiated sales over confrontation, and regulatory scrutiny post-crisis.^[50] Hostile takeovers averaged under 5% of global M&A volume, as private equity and strategic buyers preferred friendly deals amid low interest rates and buoyant markets that reduced the incentive for aggression.^[51] Despite isolated cases like Sanofi-Aventis's $20.1 billion hostile pursuit of Genzyme in 2010, which succeeded after proxy pressure, the era emphasized proxy contests over direct bids, with activists like Carl Icahn targeting underperformers to unlock value without full takeovers.^[6] A renewed uptick emerged in the early 2020s, with unsolicited bids surging from mid-2020 onward, exemplified by the June contest for CoreLogic that triggered over a dozen similar U.S. approaches by late that year.^[50] This resurgence stemmed from pandemic-induced volatility creating undervalued assets, combined with activist shareholders publicly agitating for sales to pressure reluctant boards.^[52] By 2025, hostile and competitive situations had notably increased, particularly in Europe and the U.S., with interlopers challenging initial bids and small-cap examples like Mobix Labs' September exchange offer for Peraso amid governance disputes.^[53]^[54] Overall, hostiles comprised under 2% of deals but influenced broader M&A dynamics, as bidders navigated rising interest rates and antitrust hurdles post-2022, often blending aggression with proxy fights for success.^[55]

Strategic Tactics

Bidder Strategies

In hostile takeovers, bidders seek to acquire control of a target company by circumventing its management's opposition, typically through direct appeals to shareholders or gradual accumulation of influence. These strategies leverage regulatory frameworks, such as the U.S. Williams Act of 1968, which mandates disclosures for tender offers exceeding 5% ownership but allows initial stealthy purchases. Bidders often combine tactics to maximize leverage, with empirical data indicating hostile bids succeed in approximately 37% of cases compared to 83% for friendly ones, based on Australian M&A analysis from 2015-2017.^[56]^[57] A common initial tactic is the toehold purchase, where the bidder acquires a minority stake—typically under 5% of shares—on the open market without immediate disclosure requirements, establishing a foothold for leverage in subsequent bids. This approach hedges costs and signals commitment, as the bidder profits on the toehold if the takeover premium materializes, though it risks alerting rivals or triggering defenses. In hostile contexts, toeholds appear in about 50% of bids, particularly those starting with tender offers rather than negotiated mergers.^[58]^[59]^[60] The bear hug involves publicly proposing an unsolicited acquisition at a substantial premium—often 20-30% above market value—directly to the target's board and shareholders via an open letter, creating pressure through shareholder expectations and potential fiduciary duty conflicts for rejecting directors. This non-binding overture aims to force negotiations or tender acceptance by highlighting value creation, though it carries risks of backlash if perceived as coercive.^[3]^[61]^[62] Tender offers constitute the core mechanism, wherein the bidder announces a public purchase of shares at a fixed premium (e.g., targeting 51% for control) within a limited timeframe, filed via SEC Schedule TO and accompanied by detailed financial disclosures under Schedule 14A. Bidders often engage proxy solicitation firms to target large shareholders, emphasizing synergies and undervaluation to build tender momentum despite board resistance. Short expiration dates amplify urgency, limiting defensive responses.^[1]^[63]^[56] Complementing these, proxy fights enable bidders to solicit shareholder proxies for annual or special meetings, aiming to elect sympathetic directors who can approve the deal or dismantle defenses. This involves campaigning on governance failures or superior strategic vision, often alongside tender offers, and succeeds when bidder stakes provide voting power. While costly and protracted, proxy contests have resurged with institutional investor activism, though they require demonstrating long-term value to prevail.^[1]^[3]^[16] Bidders may escalate with open-market "street sweeps" or dawn raids—rapid purchases at market open—or supportive litigation challenging poison pills as breaches of fiduciary duty under standards like Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. (1986). Public relations efforts, including media campaigns portraying management entrenchment, further sway sentiment, though antitrust scrutiny under Hart-Scott-Rodino can constrain aggressive accumulation. Overall, these tactics prioritize shareholder primacy, rooted in the market for corporate control theory, but face higher failure risks due to defensive innovations and regulatory hurdles.^[1]^[56]

Target Defenses

Target companies facing hostile takeover bids deploy a range of defensive measures, collectively known as shark repellents, to deter acquirers by increasing costs, complicating control, or altering the deal's attractiveness. These strategies are rooted in corporate governance provisions and board actions, often justified under the business judgment rule, which grants directors latitude to protect long-term shareholder value against perceived undervalued bids. However, empirical analyses indicate that such defenses can entrench management and correlate with lower firm valuations over time.^[64]^[65] The poison pill, formally a shareholder rights plan, is among the most common preemptive defenses, adopted by over 200 U.S. public companies as of 2023. It activates when an unwanted acquirer surpasses a trigger threshold, usually 10-15% ownership, granting existing shareholders rights to buy additional target shares at a steep discount (e.g., half price), thereby diluting the bidder's stake and inflating the takeover premium required—potentially by 30-50% or more. Originating in the 1980s amid waves of leveraged buyouts, poison pills were first implemented by Texaco in 1984 and upheld by Delaware courts in cases like Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum (1985), provided they are proportionate to the threat. Recent adoptions, such as Twitter's in 2022 before its sale to Elon Musk, demonstrate ongoing utility, though activist investors often challenge them via proxy votes.^[66]^[67] A white knight defense entails the target board courting a friendly alternative buyer—typically a strategic partner or private equity firm—who agrees to acquire the company on terms preserving management continuity and offering a higher bid price. This tactic leverages the board's Revlon duties, triggered by a sale process, to maximize shareholder value without capitulating to the hostile bidder, dubbed the "black knight." For instance, in the 1980s battle for Unocal, the company secured a white knight consortium after rejecting Mesa Petroleum's $9 billion offer deemed inadequate. White knights succeed when the friendly suitor provides synergies or financing unavailable to the aggressor, but they risk perceptions of favoritism if the deal undervalues the target relative to standalone potential.^[68]^[69] The Pac-Man defense reverses the dynamics by having the target launch a counter-bid to acquire the hostile bidder, creating mutual deterrence through reciprocal vulnerability and high financing demands. Named after the video game where the pursued becomes the pursuer, it requires substantial liquidity or debt capacity, making it rare and resource-intensive; targets must often issue new shares or secure bridge loans. A landmark example occurred in 1982 when Martin Marietta countered Bendix Corporation's $1.5 billion hostile bid by offering $1.9 billion for Bendix, leading to a bailout by Allied Corporation that fragmented the aggressor. This strategy has waned post-1990s due to antitrust scrutiny and capital constraints but remains viable for comparably sized firms.^[70]^[71] Structural barriers like staggered boards (or classified boards) divide directors into classes serving staggered multi-year terms—typically three years—elected annually for only one-third of seats, impeding a bidder's ability to install a full slate via proxy contest in a single election cycle. Prevalent in about 30% of S&P 500 firms as of 2020, staggered boards extend the timeline for control shifts to two or more years, allowing time for alternative defenses or negotiations. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows they reduce takeover probability by up to 20-30%, though Delaware legislation like Section 141(k) amendments in 2002 has facilitated de-staggering via shareholder votes. Critics, including institutional investors, argue they insulate underperforming boards, evidenced by lower Tobin's Q ratios in defended firms.^[72]^[73]^[65] Additional financial deterrents include golden parachutes, change-of-control provisions awarding executives severance packages—often 2-3 times salary plus bonuses and stock acceleration—upon acquisition, escalating bidder costs by millions; as of 2023, over 70% of Fortune 500 firms featured them, per Equilar data. Greenmail involves repurchasing the acquirer's accumulated stake at a 10-20% premium above market, effectively buying peace but criticized for favoring raiders at shareholder expense, as in Disney's 1984 payout to Saul Steinberg. The crown jewels defense entails divesting crown-jewel assets (e.g., profitable divisions) to a white knight or third party, rendering the remaining entity less valuable, though it risks lawsuits for asset stripping if not tied to superior value. These tactics, while legally permissible under fiduciary standards, face shareholder pushback via say-on-pay votes or litigation, with data showing mixed efficacy in sustaining independence versus eventual deals on revised terms.^[74]^[75]

Case Studies

Revlon Acquisition (1985)

In August 1985, Pantry Pride Inc., a supermarket chain controlled by investor Ronald Perelman through his holding company MacAndrews & Forbes, initiated a hostile takeover bid for Revlon Inc., a major cosmetics manufacturer then valued at around $1.9 billion based on an initial offer of $47.50 per share for Revlon's outstanding stock.^[76] Perelman had previously approached Revlon's CEO Michel C. Bergerac in June 1985 with a friendly acquisition proposal, but after being rebuffed, he proceeded with the unsolicited tender offer using Pantry Pride as the acquisition vehicle despite the company's smaller size and lower revenue compared to Revlon.^[77] This move exemplified early 1980s hostile tactics, leveraging junk bond financing and asset sales to fund the deal amid a market where Revlon's shares had traded as low as $32.50 earlier that year.^[78] Revlon's board, facing the threat, implemented defensive measures including a shareholder rights plan (poison pill) adopted on August 19, 1985, which would dilute Pantry Pride's stake if triggered, and began soliciting white knight bids to counter the offer.^[79] On September 28, 1985, Pantry Pride raised its bid to $50 per share, prompting Revlon to accelerate negotiations; by early October, Revlon agreed to a leveraged buyout (LBO) from Forstmann Little & Co. at approximately $56 per share, valuing the deal at $1.8 billion in equity, with Forstmann providing a $525 million equity stake and securing lock-up options on Revlon assets as protection.^[80]^[81] Perelman responded aggressively, topping the offer with $56.25 per share on October 3 and financing it through high-yield debt arranged by Michael Milken's Drexel Burnham Lambert, while challenging Revlon's defenses in Delaware Chancery Court, arguing they unfairly locked out his bid.^[78] The court battles highlighted tensions in takeover law: Revlon sued to enforce its Forstmann deal, but Perelman's team contested crown jewel lock-ups and no-shop clauses as breaches of fiduciary duty, leading to a Delaware Supreme Court ruling in 1986 that, once a sale process begins, directors must prioritize maximizing immediate shareholder value over long-term corporate interests—a doctrine known as the "Revlon Rule."^[82] On November 5, 1985, Pantry Pride completed the acquisition at $58 per share, totaling $2.7 billion including debt assumption, after Revlon's board deemed it superior despite the hostility.^[83] Post-acquisition, Perelman took Revlon private, sold non-core divisions for $1.4 billion to reduce debt, and installed himself as chairman, though the company later faced financial strains from the LBO leverage.^[82] This case demonstrated how hostile bidders could prevail against entrenched management by escalating bids and exploiting legal vulnerabilities in defenses, influencing the 1980s takeover wave.^[84]

Anheuser-Busch by InBev (2008)

In June 2008, InBev NV/SA, a Belgian-Brazilian brewing conglomerate formed from the 2004 merger of Interbrew and AmBev, launched an unsolicited bid to acquire Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., the St. Louis-based producer of Budweiser and America's largest brewer by volume.^[85] The initial private offer of $65 per share represented a premium over Anheuser-Busch's recent trading prices, which hovered around $55–$62, but the Anheuser-Busch board rejected it as financially inadequate, arguing it failed to reflect the company's intrinsic value or future growth potential from domestic market dominance and international expansion.^[86] ^[87] Facing resistance, InBev escalated to a hostile public tender offer on July 7, 2008, directly appealing to Anheuser-Busch shareholders while criticizing the target's management for complacency amid declining U.S. beer consumption and stagnant profitability.^[88] Anheuser-Busch mounted defenses, including a June 27 announcement of $1 billion in cost cuts, accelerated share buybacks, and emphasis on organic growth strategies to demonstrate standalone value exceeding the bid.^[89] However, shareholder pressure mounted as the offer implied a 20–30% premium to pre-bid levels, prompting negotiations; by July 13, the parties agreed to a sweetened deal at $70 per share in cash, valuing Anheuser-Busch at approximately $52 billion including assumed debt—the largest cash acquisition of a U.S. public company at the time.^[90] ^[85] The transaction, initially adversarial, transitioned to friendly after board approval, with Anheuser-Busch shareholders voting 96% in favor on November 13, 2008, following InBev's shareholder endorsement.^[91] Regulatory clearances were obtained without divestitures, including U.S. Department of Justice approval under antitrust review, as the merger enhanced global efficiencies without reducing U.S. competition significantly.^[92] The deal closed on November 18, 2008, forming Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, which realized over $1.5 billion in annual synergies through supply chain integration, procurement savings, and overhead reductions, though it later involved workforce reductions at Anheuser-Busch facilities.^[93] This case exemplifies how hostile bids can compel entrenched management to negotiate value-maximizing outcomes, delivering substantial premiums to shareholders despite initial opposition rooted in nationalistic and operational concerns.^[94]

Twitter by Elon Musk (2022)

Elon Musk initiated his involvement with Twitter by purchasing shares starting on January 31, 2022, accumulating a 9.2% stake valued at approximately $2.64 billion by April 4, 2022, which he disclosed in a regulatory filing.^[95] On April 14, 2022, Musk launched an unsolicited bid to acquire all outstanding shares of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, totaling about $43 billion, arguing that the platform required transformation to prioritize free speech and combat spam.^[96] This offer represented a 38% premium over Twitter's closing stock price on April 1, 2022.^[97] In response to the unsolicited proposal, Twitter's board of directors adopted a one-year "poison pill" shareholder rights plan on April 15, 2022, designed to dilute Musk's ownership if he attempted to acquire more than 15% of shares without board approval, thereby deterring a hostile takeover.^[96] Despite this defense, the board ultimately deemed the offer superior to alternatives after a review process and entered into a merger agreement on April 25, 2022, valuing the deal at $44 billion including debt assumption.^[98] Musk secured financing commitments totaling $46.5 billion, including $13 billion in bank loans, $21 billion in equity from himself, and $7.1 billion from co-investors.^[99] Musk sought to terminate the agreement in July 2022, citing Twitter's alleged material breach due to insufficient disclosure on spam and bot accounts, which he claimed misrepresented the user base.^[100] Twitter countersued in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enforce specific performance of the merger, arguing that Musk's withdrawal was pretextual and aimed at escaping a deal amid falling Tesla stock prices.^[101] Facing a trial scheduled for October 17, 2022, Musk notified Twitter on October 4, 2022, of his intent to proceed at the original price, and the acquisition closed on October 27, 2022, with Musk taking Twitter private and firing key executives including CEO Parag Agrawal.^[102] The episode highlighted the enforceability of merger agreements under Delaware law, where courts prioritize contractual specificity over post-signing market changes.^[101]

Economic Impacts

Shareholder Value Creation

Hostile takeovers typically generate substantial short-term value for target company shareholders, primarily through acquisition premiums paid by bidders that exceed prevailing market prices. Empirical analyses of tender offers from 1963 to 1997 indicate average value improvements as perceived by investors, with premiums in hostile bids often surpassing 30 percent above the pre-announcement share price.^[103]^[104] These premiums reflect the bidder's assessment of untapped potential in the target, such as undervalued assets or inefficient operations, incentivizing shareholders to tender shares despite management opposition. The mechanism underlying this value creation aligns with the free cash flow hypothesis, which posits that hostile takeovers discipline entrenched managers who may squander excess cash on value-destroying investments rather than returning it to shareholders. By replacing or constraining such management, takeovers enforce higher payouts or asset reallocations, thereby enhancing firm efficiency and long-term returns.^[105] Studies of U.S. takeovers in the 1980s support this, showing that targets with high free cash flow experienced greater post-takeover performance improvements compared to peers.^[106] Long-run evidence further substantiates gains for target shareholders, with hostile takeovers associated with significant profit return enhancements and asset disposals that streamline operations. Acquirer shareholders, however, often realize modest or zero abnormal returns, suggesting that value accrual is asymmetric and concentrated in targets, though the overall market for corporate control imposes discipline that benefits broader investor interests.^[8]^[36] This pattern holds across samples, where hostile bids yield higher premiums than friendly mergers, underscoring their role in correcting mispricings.^[107]

Governance and Efficiency Gains

Hostile takeovers frequently enhance corporate governance by displacing entrenched management teams that have underperformed relative to shareholder expectations, thereby reducing agency costs through greater alignment of incentives with value maximization. Empirical analyses of tender offers from 1963 to 1997 indicate that investors perceive substantial value creation, with average improvements equivalent to approximately 50% of the target's pre-announcement market value, as measured by probability scaling and intervention methods that account for synergies and disciplinary effects.^[103] This disciplinary mechanism is particularly pronounced in hostile bids, where acquirers target firms with suboptimal strategies, such as excessive diversification, leading to the installation of oversight more responsive to market signals.^[35] Post-acquisition performance data further substantiate governance gains, with hostile takeovers yielding significant profitability enhancements not observed in friendly mergers. A study of UK bids from 1975 to 1984 found that hostile targets experienced a median annual return on sales improvement of 3.1 percentage points post-takeover, driven by expanded operating profit margins, compared to negligible changes (-0.6 percentage points) in friendly cases.^[8] These outcomes stem from the replacement of resistant boards, which often prioritize personal or short-term entrenchment over long-term efficiency, with acquirers imposing stricter monitoring and performance-based incentives. Efficiency gains manifest through operational restructuring, including targeted asset disposals that refocus firms on core competencies and eliminate value-destroying diversification. In analyzed hostile takeovers, divestitures occurred in 60.7% of cases, reversing prior conglomerate expansions that had diluted focus and resource allocation, thereby boosting overall productivity without broadly sacrificing long-term investment—cuts, when present, typically mirrored industry-wide trends rather than takeover-specific actions.^[35] Such reallocations via external capital markets outperform internal corporate decision-making, as evidenced by the sustained profit uplifts and absence of systematic underperformance in restructured entities.^[8] While some accounting-based metrics show mixed short-term results, market-based valuations consistently affirm net positive impacts on firm efficiency.^[103]

Employment and Operational Effects

Hostile takeovers often prompt operational restructuring aimed at eliminating redundancies and enhancing efficiency, which typically involves workforce reductions in the target firm to realize cost synergies. Studies indicate that such changes are more pronounced in targets perceived as inefficient, where incumbent management has failed to adequately downsize operations amid industry decline or disruption. For instance, empirical analysis of UK hostile takeovers from 1983 to 1996 found no evidence of disproportionate job destruction relative to friendly mergers, with employment effects driven primarily by pre-existing firm performance rather than the bid's hostility.^[108] Similarly, research on ownership changes shows that hostile bids target firms requiring contraction, leading to targeted layoffs but not broader industry-wide employment losses.^[109] Operationally, acquirers frequently divest non-core assets, streamline supply chains, and invest in productivity-enhancing technologies post-takeover, resulting in higher output per employee. A study of takeover bids in the UK revealed no significant alteration in average employment costs per worker following hostile acquisitions, suggesting that while headcount may decline, remaining labor becomes more productive without wage compression.^[8] Productivity gains are attributed to better resource allocation, with evidence from merged entities showing improved labor management and synergy realization over time, though initial disruptions can temporarily reduce operational output.^[110] These effects align with causal mechanisms where hostile pressure enforces market discipline, reallocating labor from low-value uses to higher-growth opportunities economy-wide, despite localized job displacement.^[111] Critics, including analyses of implicit contracts, argue that hostile takeovers breach "trust" with long-tenured employees by curtailing extramarginal wages or deferred compensation, potentially eroding morale and firm-specific human capital.^[112] However, empirical tests find limited support for systematic expropriation, with post-takeover employee profitability rising by approximately 21% in hostile cases, indicating that gains from efficiency often offset individual losses.^[110] Overall, while targets experience net employment declines averaging 5-10% in the first few years—concentrated in administrative and overlapping roles—these are compositional shifts that preserve workers' relative shares of firm rents without net destruction.^[113] Long-term operational improvements, such as reduced bureaucracy and focused R&D, contribute to sustained value creation, benefiting shareholders and, indirectly, efficient labor markets.^[114]

Debates and Empirical Evidence

Criticisms of Short-Termism

Critics argue that the specter of hostile takeovers incentivizes corporate managers to adopt short-termist strategies, prioritizing immediate boosts to earnings and share prices to deter potential acquirers, often at the expense of long-term value-enhancing investments such as research and development (R&D) or capital expenditures. This phenomenon, dubbed managerial myopia, emerged as a focal point during the 1980s wave of leveraged buyouts and hostile bids, where executives faced pressure to demonstrate quick performance improvements to maintain control, leading to widespread scrutiny of how takeover threats distort intertemporal decision-making.^[115] Theoretical models substantiate these concerns; for instance, Jeremy Stein's 1988 analysis demonstrates that under takeover pressure, rational managers may reject projects with positive net present value if their cash flows are back-loaded, as such investments do not sufficiently elevate contemporaneous stock prices to signal firm value and repel bids. Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny's 1990 framework further elucidates how short investor horizons—amplified by noisy markets and takeover dynamics—lead firms to favor near-term gains over distant payoffs, creating an equilibrium where long-horizon projects are systematically undervalued.^[116]^[117] Empirical studies provide evidence of this effect, particularly in reduced R&D intensity among threatened firms. Research examining takeover vulnerabilities finds that heightened acquisition risks correlate with curtailed innovation spending, as managers redirect resources toward short-term profitability to appease shareholders and activists. For example, firms facing elevated takeover threats have been shown to decrease R&D allocations, potentially eroding competitive advantages and future growth prospects. This pattern aligns with broader observations of investment deferral during periods of market discipline, where quarterly earnings targets supersede strategic foresight.^[118]^[119]^[120]

Evidence Supporting Market Discipline

Hostile takeovers function as a key element of the market for corporate control, compelling underperforming managements to enhance efficiency or face replacement, thereby aligning incentives with shareholder value maximization. This disciplinary mechanism, first articulated by Henry Manne in 1965, posits that undervalued firms due to managerial inefficiency become takeover targets, with acquirers capturing gains from improved operations.^[121] Empirical analyses consistently show that target firms in hostile bids exhibit inferior pre-acquisition performance relative to peers, supporting the notion that takeovers address agency problems. For example, operating return on assets for targets averages 1.5 percentage points below industry medians in the years prior to bids. Post-takeover, combined entities demonstrate enhanced profitability, with studies reporting annual increases of 4.9% over three years following hostile deals, contrasted with -0.7% for friendly ones.^[8]^[122] Shareholder wealth effects further underscore market discipline: target shareholders capture substantial premiums, averaging 20-30% above pre-bid prices, while acquirers experience neutral or modestly positive returns, yielding net positive gains for the economy. A comprehensive review of scientific evidence confirms that takeovers generate overall positive abnormal returns without systematic losses to bidding firm shareholders.^[123] The threat of hostile takeovers alone induces managerial discipline, as evidenced by cross-country studies where intensified takeover activity correlates with reduced executive perquisites and improved governance. In banking sectors, acquisitions have been linked to sustained profitability gains, validating incentives for value maximization. These findings counter claims of mere wealth transfers, highlighting causal improvements in resource allocation and operational efficiency.^[124]^[125]

Regulatory Trade-Offs

Regulatory frameworks governing hostile takeovers, primarily through securities laws and antitrust statutes, aim to balance market efficiency with protections against abuse, but introduce trade-offs that can either facilitate or hinder value-creating transactions. In the United States, the Williams Act of 1968 mandates disclosure requirements and tender offer rules to ensure shareholders receive material information, promoting informed decisions while preventing coercive bids; however, these provisions extend minimum offer periods (typically 20 business days), allowing targets to mount defenses that may deter bids even when management underperformance warrants change.^[126] This regulatory delay trades short-term shareholder gains for procedural fairness, though empirical analyses indicate it correlates with reduced takeover premiums in contested bids, as targets deploy tactics like poison pills under Delaware law.^[127] Antitrust scrutiny, enforced by agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (1976), exemplifies a core trade-off: blocking mergers that substantially lessen competition preserves market structure, yet it can veto horizontally synergistic deals that enhance efficiency. Regulators view most mergers as competitively neutral or beneficial, with data from 1980s-2000s hostile bids showing antitrust challenges succeeding in under 5% of cases, primarily where market shares exceeded 30-40%; however, overly stringent reviews, as in cross-border deals, amplify barriers, evidenced by a 2010-2014 study of 263 European and North American bids where government interventions blocked 12% of foreign acquirers on national security grounds, potentially forgoing productivity gains from foreign expertise.^[128]^[129] State-level anti-takeover statutes, such as business combination laws adopted by 37 states post-1980s wave, impose moratoriums on asset sales post-takeover, intended to curb raiders' asset-stripping but empirically linked to diminished firm values; a cross-state analysis found targeted firms underperforming peers by 1-2% annually due to entrenched management, reducing the disciplinary threat of takeovers that historically corrected managerial failures in 20-30% of cases per event studies.^[127] Internationally, regimes vary: the UK's Takeover Panel emphasizes speed and equality (e.g., mandatory bids at highest price), minimizing delays but exposing firms to rapid control shifts, while Japan's post-2000s liberalization increased bids yet retained cross-shareholdings as de facto barriers, trading takeover frequency for stability amid cultural aversion to disruption.^[23] These differences highlight a global trade-off between enabling market-driven reallocations—which evidence ties to 10-15% abnormal returns for target shareholders—and regulatory safeguards that mitigate employment volatility, as hostile takeovers associate with 5-10% workforce reductions in the first year post-acquisition.^[130] In emerging markets, fiduciary standards often serve as proxies for takeover regulation, but lax enforcement entrenches insiders, as seen in China's state-influenced blocks; reforms toward Anglo-American models could enhance accountability yet risk short-term economic shocks, underscoring the causal tension between regulatory liberalization and sustained growth.^[23] Overall, while regulations prevent externalities like monopolization— with U.S. antitrust blocking fewer than 1% of notified mergers annually—they diminish takeover activity, with U.S. hostile bids dropping from 200+ in the 1980s to under 20 yearly post-2000 amid layered defenses, potentially at the cost of suboptimal resource allocation.^[131]

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Key Legal Tools and Precedents

The Williams Act, enacted on July 29, 1968, as amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, provides the primary federal regulatory framework for tender offers commonly used in hostile takeovers. It mandates that any person or group acquiring more than 5% of a public company's shares file a Schedule 13D disclosure with the SEC within 10 days, detailing their intentions, and imposes specific requirements for tender offers, including a minimum 20-business-day offer period (extended from 10 days in 2023 via SEC amendments) to allow shareholders time to evaluate bids without coercion. This legislation aimed to protect minority shareholders from abusive tactics in unsolicited bids while preserving market efficiency, as evidenced by its response to 1960s cash tender offer waves.^[132]^[133] In the U.S., where Delaware incorporates over 60% of Fortune 500 companies as of 2023, state corporate law governs director fiduciary duties and defensive measures against hostile bids. Directors may employ shareholder rights plans, or "poison pills," which dilute an acquirer's stake by allowing other shareholders to buy shares at a discount if a bidder exceeds a threshold (typically 15-20%), precluding coercive two-tiered offers. Such plans must withstand judicial scrutiny under the business judgment rule unless triggered by a takeover threat.^[134] The Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985), established the "enhanced scrutiny" standard for defensive tactics, requiring boards to identify a specific threat to corporate policy or effectiveness and demonstrate that their response is reasonable and proportionate, rather than draconian or preclusive. This replaced deferential review with proportionality analysis to prevent entrenchment, as seen in Unocal's selective note exchange offer excluding the bidder Mesa, which the court upheld despite initial injunction. In Moran v. Household International, Inc., 500 A.2d 1346 (Del. 1985), the court validated preemptive poison pills adopted before any bid, affirming they do not inherently violate fiduciary duties if rationally related to shareholder interests, provided they can be redeemed by the board.^[135] Further, Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), imposed a duty on directors to maximize immediate shareholder value once a sale or breakup becomes inevitable, shifting focus from long-term defense to auction-like processes in change-of-control transactions. This "Revlon mode" limits entrenching measures, as the court invalidated Revlon's lock-up option favoring one bidder, emphasizing that directors cannot favor non-shareholder interests like management continuity over highest price. These precedents collectively balance bidder access with board accountability, influencing over 80% of U.S. public M&A disputes litigated in Delaware Chancery Court annually.

Antitrust and Cross-Border Issues

Hostile takeovers, like negotiated mergers, are subject to antitrust review to assess potential reductions in competition, but the adversarial nature can lead targets to strategically invoke antitrust claims as a defensive tactic to delay proceedings or deter bidders. In the United States, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) evaluate such transactions under the Clayton Act and Sherman Act, focusing on market concentration via the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI); hostile bids exceeding certain HHI thresholds (e.g., post-merger HHI above 2,500 with a delta over 200) trigger presumptive illegality unless efficiencies are proven. Targets have filed private antitrust suits to seek preliminary injunctions, exploiting the lengthy discovery process—often spanning years—to undermine bidder momentum, as seen in cases where management alleges anticompetitive harm to consumers despite regulatory timelines typically allowing 30 days for initial reviews under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.^[136] A prominent example occurred in 2011 when Nasdaq OMX Group's $11 billion hostile bid for the New York Stock Exchange Euronext was blocked by the DOJ on antitrust grounds, citing risks of reduced competition in U.S. equity trading, including higher transaction costs and diminished innovation; the agencies determined the merger would create excessive market power in listings, trading, and data services, with no sufficient divestitures proposed to mitigate overlaps. Similarly, in the funeral services sector, Loewen Group used antitrust litigation against Service Corporation International's hostile approach, alleging monopolistic consolidation in local markets, though courts have scrutinized such claims for evidence of genuine consumer harm rather than managerial self-interest. Empirical analyses indicate that while antitrust injunctions succeed in about 70% of private challenges during hostile bids, they rarely alter underlying competitive realities, often serving as "scorched earth" defenses rather than meritorious blocks.^[137] Cross-border hostile takeovers introduce additional regulatory hurdles beyond antitrust, including foreign investment reviews for national security and public interest, which can amplify scrutiny when targets resist. In the U.S., the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) examines inbound deals for threats to critical infrastructure, technology, or defense, with authority to recommend presidential blockage; hostile bids from foreign entities face heightened political risk, as targets may lobby regulators to invoke these reviews absent formal antitrust violations. The 2018 $117 billion hostile attempt by Singapore-based Broadcom Ltd. to acquire U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm exemplifies this: CFIUS initiated a review on national security grounds, citing Broadcom's potential to undermine Qualcomm's 5G leadership and U.S. technological edge against China, leading President Trump to issue an executive order on March 12, 2018, prohibiting the deal and requiring Broadcom to cease proxy fights and share accumulation.^[138]^[139] Such interventions reflect causal concerns over technology transfer and supply chain vulnerabilities, with CFIUS modifications under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) of 2018 expanding scope to non-controlling investments in sensitive sectors, applying retroactively to pending hostiles. In the EU, cross-border bids undergo merger control under the EU Merger Regulation alongside national reviews, but hostile attempts like Kraft's 2007 bid for Cadbury faced post-deal scrutiny over job protections, though rarely outright blocks unless competition thresholds are breached. Globally, these regimes prioritize empirical risks—e.g., loss of domestic control over strategic assets—over bidder intent, with data showing cross-border hostiles succeeding at lower rates (under 20% in tech sectors per 2010-2020 analyses) due to layered approvals, underscoring how regulatory nationalism can deter foreign aggressors despite antitrust clearance.^[140]

References

[1]
Hostile Takeover Explained: What It Is, How It Works, and Examples
Mar 4, 2025 · A hostile takeover is the acquisition of one company by another without approval from the target company's management.What Is a Hostile Takeover? · How It Works · Defenses · Examples
[2]
Hostile Takeover - Definition and Strategies
A hostile takeover, in M&A, is the acquisition of a target company by another company by going directly to the target company's shareholders.Example of a Hostile Takeover · Hostile Takeover Strategies · Proxy vote
[3]
Hostile Takeover | Definition + M&A Examples - Wall Street Prep
A hostile takeover refers to a bid to acquire a target company, in which the board of directors of the target is not receptive to the offer.How Does the Hostile... · Common Types of Hostile...
[4]
Hostile Takeovers in the 1980s: The Return to Corporate ...
The question is where these wealth gains come from. We examine the sample of all 62 hostile takeover contests between 1984 and 1986 that involved a purchase ...
[5]
[PDF] The Causes and Consequences of Hostile Takeovers.
Indeed there appear to be only two significant consequences of hostile takeovers: 1) Reversal of past policies of unrelated diversifica- tion. and, 2) Transfer ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[6]
What Are Some Top Examples of Hostile Takeovers? - Investopedia
Some notable hostile takeovers include when the Kraft Heinz Company took over Cadbury in 2010, when InBev took over Budweiser maker Anheuser-Busch in 2008, and ...
[7]
Top 8 Hostile Takeover Examples: How it Happened? - DealRoom.net
Aug 20, 2025 · Examples of Hostile Takeovers over the years · InBev's acquisition of Anheuser-Busch · Oracle's acquisition of PeopleSoft · Sanofi-Aventis ...Why Hostile Takeovers Happen · Examples of Hostile Takeovers...
[8]
[PDF] The Determinants and Effects of Hostile and Friendly Takeover Bids
To summarise, there is little evidence that targets of hostile takeovers have lower pre-takeover profitability than non-merging firms or targets in friendly ...
[9]
[PDF] Hostile Takeovers? - National Bureau of Economic Research
Finally, hostile offers are less likely to result in a successful takeover, even by another competing bidder. This effect is strongest for the unnegotiated ...
[10]
Do takeover laws matter? Evidence from five decades of hostile ...
This study evaluates the relation between hostile takeovers and 17 takeover laws from 1965 to 2014.
[11]
Hostile Takeovers vs. Friendly Takeovers: What's the Difference?
In a hostile takeover, the target company's directors do not side with the acquiring company's directors. In such a case, the acquiring company can offer to pay ...
[12]
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.What are Friendly Takeovers... · What is a Takeover and Why...
[13]
Friendly Takeovers vs Hostile Takeovers - Know The Differences
May 31, 2025 · Friendly takeovers have several advantages over hostile takeovers, mainly because of the general cooperation between the buyer and the seller and the price.What are Friendly Takeovers... · Hostile Takeover Defenses
[14]
takeover | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
In a hostile takeover, the tender offer is released to the public and the success of the takeover depends on whether the terms of the offer entice enough ...Missing: core | Show results with:core
[15]
Regulation of Takeovers and Security Holder Communications
We are adopting comprehensive revisions to the rules and regulations applicable to takeover transactions (including tender offers, mergers, acquisitions and ...Missing: core | Show results with:core
[16]
What is a Hostile Takeover? | Donnelley Financial Solutions (DFIN)
Sep 19, 2025 · A hostile takeover occurs when an acquiring company seeks to gain control of a target company despite opposition from the target company's ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[17]
M&A, Overview - Takeover/Tender Offer (Practice Points)
In a hostile Tender Offer, the Target's defensive mechanisms may make a takeover more difficult. These are generally contained in the organizational documents ...
[18]
Proxy Fight: Definition, Causes, What Happens, and Example
A proxy fight refers to the act of a group of shareholders joining forces and attempting to gather enough shareholder proxy votes to win a corporate vote.
[19]
Proxy Fight - Definition, Examples, How it Works
A proxy fight is a battle between shareholders and senior management for control of the company. It is also a strategy commonly employed in hostile takeovers.What is a Proxy Fight? · Reasons and Examples of...
[20]
Creeping Takeover - Corporate Finance Institute
The purpose of a creeping tender offer is to obtain a portion of the target company's shares more cheaply than one can through an ordinary tender offer. In some ...What is a Creeping Takeover? · Rationale Behind a Creeping...Missing: hostile | Show results with:hostile
[21]
Your Guide to Hostile Takeovers of Public Companies - Policygenius
Jul 15, 2019 · Creeping tender offer. With this variation on the tender offer, the bidder still aims to gain a majority stake in the target company. But ...
[22]
Creeping tender offer: Explained | TIOmarkets
Jul 4, 2024 · A creeping tender offer is a strategic approach to gain control of a company by gradually acquiring its shares over time.
[23]
[PDF] The Evolution of Hostile Takeover Regimes in Developed and ...
In each of the three largest economies with dispersed ownership of public companies—the United States, the. United Kingdom, and Japan—hostile takeovers ...
[24]
Clores out: J Sears & Co - Let's Look Again
Nov 22, 2015 · ... sheet. His acquisition of the company for £4.5 million in 1953 represented the first successful hostile takeover in British history. Clore ...<|separator|>
[25]
What can you learn from Sir Charles Clore? - Management Today
Feb 7, 2019 · In 1953, Charles Clore launched the UK's first successful hostile takeover bid. He acquired Sears, which then owned the Freeman, Hardy and ...
[26]
From balanced enterprise to hostile takeover: how the law forgot ...
Dec 18, 2018 · Charles Clore launched the first hostile takeover bids in 1953 for the Savoy Hotel and Sears: see Chambers, D 'The city and the corporate ...
[27]
[PDF] Are Hostile Takeovers Different? - Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
While proxy fights were used in the 1950s, the tender offer has been the preferred mechanism for making hostile takeovers for the past 25 years. Although tender ...
[28]
[PDF] TAKEOVERS IN THE '60s AND THE '80s - Harvard University
Hostile takeovers facilitated this move to specialization, again with the approval of the stock market. The trouble with this view, of course, is that there is ...
[29]
[PDF] The Peculiar Divergence of US and UK Takeover Regulation
Hostile takeovers are commonly thought to play a key role in rendering managers accountable to dispersed shareholders in the “Anglo-American” system of ...
[30]
[PDF] THE ORIGINS OF THE MARKET FOR CORPORATE CONTROL
that while there were examples of hostile bids occurring in the railway sector in the 1920s, various changes affecting railways meant that such transactions ...
[31]
[PDF] A Century of Corporate Takeovers: What Have We Learned and ...
Interestingly, hostile takeover activity emerged even in countries where it had been completely absent. The absence of hostile threats in the 1980s is largely.
[32]
[PDF] Hostile Takeovers and Defensive Mechanisms in the United ...
Should the United Kingdom abandon its restrictive approach towards takeover defenses and adopt the laxer and more lenient U.S. model? The answer should be ...Missing: methods | Show results with:methods
[33]
[PDF] The 1980s Takeover Boom and Government Regulation
"An investment group from Tokyo is here. To me it looks like a hostile takeover bid." days with an automatic ten-day extension in the event ...<|separator|>
[34]
Hostile Acquisitions and the Restructuring of Corporate America
During the 1960s, the “market for corporate control” sprang on corporate America with the advent of the hostile takeover bid. No planner sat down in advance and ...Missing: 1950s | Show results with:1950s
[35]
None
Below is a merged summary of the main conclusions on hostile takeovers based on the provided segments from Amarnath V. Bhide’s 1988 thesis. To retain all information in a dense and comprehensive format, I’ve organized the key details into tables for clarity and completeness, followed by a concise narrative summary. The tables cover **Causes** and **Consequences**, incorporating all unique data points and perspectives from the segments.
[36]
[PDF] Hostile takeover and the market for corporate control;
101-136 study the characteristics of hostile takeover targets and suggest that hostile takeovers occur in declining industries and those in a state of change,.
[37]
The History of High-Yield Bond Meltdowns - Investopedia
The junk bond market grew exponentially during the 1980s from a mere $10 billion in 1979 to a whopping $189 billion by 1989, an increase of more than 34% each ...
[38]
[PDF] Financial Innovation and Corporate Mergers
Their notorious reputation was made beginning in 1985, when junk bonds first were used to finance hostile takeovers. Although junk bonds accounted for under 15 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[39]
[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.
[40]
Who Is Carl Icahn? What Is the Icahn Lift Phenomenon? - Investopedia
Carl Icahn is one of Wall Street's most successful figures. In the 1980s, this corporate raider—using Drexel Burnham's junk bonds—became known as a vulture ...
[41]
The Co-Founder of Shareholder Activism Is Dead, but His Cause Is ...
Sep 13, 2019 · Along with Carl Icahn, oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens invented the corporate raider concept.
[42]
The Role of Corporate Raiders in Mergers and Acquisitions
May 19, 2025 · Among the most notable corporate raiders of this period were Carl Icahn, T. Boone Pickens, Victor Posner, and Saul Steinberg. These ...
[43]
Method to the Merger Madness: Revisiting the '80s takeover boom
Currently, the number of hostile bid announcements made by first bidders is very small indeed. A second major change from the 1980s is that financial buyers ...
[44]
Takeover - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Hostile takeovers of U.S. firms peaked at about 14 percent in the 1980s, before dropping to a low of about 4 percent in the 1990s. The decline in hostile ...
[45]
[PDF] Corporate Governance and Merger Activity in the US
This also provides the most plausible explanation of why hostile takeovers and LBOs largely disappeared in the 1990s – they were no longer needed. A telling ...
[46]
Takeovers Face New Obstacles - The New York Times
Apr 19, 1990 · In 1987, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Indiana statute that limited takeover activity in that state by requiring certain hostile ...
[47]
It's the Era of the Civilized Hostile Takeover - The New York Times
Mar 19, 1997 · According to the Securities Data Company, there were 73 hostile or unsolicited bids announced in 1996 and 97 in 1995, with a combined value of ...
[48]
10 Famous Hostile Takeovers: Lessons from Corporate History
Dec 16, 2024 · A hostile takeover is when an acquirer takes over a target against its will. Examples include Elon Musk's Twitter acquisition and JetBlue's bid ...
[49]
U.S. hostile takeovers hit record as market swoons | Reuters
Sep 29, 2008 · PHILADELPHIA, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Hostile takeovers have more than doubled to a record level in the United States so far this year, boosted ...
[50]
The Comeback of Hostile Takeovers
Nov 8, 2020 · The hostile takeover became the defining symbol of U.S. style capitalism, encapsulated in the 1987 movie classic “Wall Street”. However, after ...
[51]
Trends in hostile M&A - Financier Worldwide
Trends in hostile M&A ... Activists are agitating – both publicly and privately – at targets to support hostile takeover bids and increase pressure on the board.Missing: 2010s 2020s
[52]
Hostile takeovers return - Financier Worldwide
The increasing agitation of activist shareholders has had a profound effect on the resurgence of hostile takeover bids. More so than ever, activist shareholders ...<|separator|>
[53]
Takeovers: Trends in 2025 - Slaughter and May
Sep 1, 2025 · 2025 has seen a notable increase in competitive – and even hostile – situations, with interlopers and contested bids becoming the biggest ...
[54]
Mobix Labs, Inc. Announces Hostile Exchange Offer to Acquire ...
Sep 15, 2025 · Mobix Labs announces a hostile bid to acquire Peraso, citing concerns over Peraso's governance and recent dilutive actions.
[55]
The Comeback of Hostile Takeovers | Insights - Sidley Austin LLP
The Comeback of Hostile Takeovers ... Unsolicited takeover bids were rare during the last decade, but are now experiencing a resurgence. So, how do you defend ...
[56]
Hostile Takeover Bid - Overview, How It Works, Strategies
Dec 17, 2024 · Hostile takeover bids are offers of acquisition made by one business or entity that is not desired by the target. The vast majority of ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[57]
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/williamsact.asp
[58]
Toehold Purchase: What it is, How it Works, Example - Investopedia
If the acquiring company is planning a hostile takeover of a target company, establishing a toehold position allows it to begin purchasing shares of the target ...
[59]
Toehold Position/Purchase - Overview and Process
A toehold position is an acquisition or investment strategy where an investor targets a particular company but buys less than 5% of the company's stock.
[60]
[PDF] Merger Negotiations and the Toehold Puzzle
We also show that toehold bidding is the norm in hostile bids (50% frequency), more frequent when the initial bid is a tender offer rather than a merger bid, ...<|separator|>
[61]
Bear Hug - Definition, How It Works, Reasons for a Takeover
A bear hug is a hostile takeover strategy where a potential acquirer offers to purchase the stock of another company for a much higher price than what the ...What is a Bear Hug? · How It Works · Reasons for a Bear Hug...
[62]
Understanding Bear Hugs in Business: Definition, Advantages, and ...
A bear hug in business is an unsolicited acquisition strategy where a company publicly offers to buy another at a marked premium, persuading shareholders ...What Is a Bear Hug? · How Bear Hugs Influence... · Pros and Cons · Case Studies
[63]
Hostile Bid - Overview, How It Works, and Reasons
A hostile bid is a type of takeover bid where the acquiring company presents a tender offer directly to the shareholders to buy their shares at a premium.<|separator|>
[64]
Shark Repellent: Meaning, Tactics, Example - Investopedia
Shark repellent tactics refer to measures taken by a company to fend off unwanted or hostile takeover attempts. Shark repellents occupy a moral gray area ...
[65]
[PDF] An Overview of Takeover Defenses
Takeover defenses include all actions by managers to resist having their firms acquired. Attempts by target managers to defeat outstanding takeover ...
[66]
Poison Pill - A Shareholder Rights Plan to Prevent Hostile Takeovers
A shareholder rights plan, more commonly known as a poison pill, is a company's defense against a potentially hostile, or unsolicited, takeover attempt.
[67]
Poison Pill Defense | M&A Definition + Examples - Wall Street Prep
Poison Pill Defense is a type of M&A strategy in finance utilized by companies attempting to thwart a hostile takeover.
[68]
White Knight - Know the White Knight's Role in a Hostile Takeover
A white knight is a company or individual that acquires a target company to prevent a hostile takeover, offering better terms and preserving management.What is a White Knight? · White Knight in a Hostile...
[69]
White Knight M&A Hostile Takeover Strategy - Ansarada
A white knight strategy involves a friendly buyer rescuing a target company from a hostile takeover by purchasing it, with the target company's board support.
[70]
Pac-Man Defense: What it is, How it Works, Examples - Investopedia
With the Pac-Man defense, a company that has been targeted in a hostile takeover scenario fights back by seeking to gain financial control of the situation.
[71]
Pac-Man Defense - Strategy to Prevent a Hostile Takeover in M&A
The Pac-Man Defense is a strategy used by targeted companies to prevent a hostile takeover. This takeover prevention strategy is implemented by the target ...Missing: bid | Show results with:bid
[72]
Staggered Board: What it is, How it Works, Pros and Cons
A staggered board of directors is a system that typically aims to prevent hostile takeovers. · In a staggered board approach, a company only opens up a portion ...
[73]
Staggered Board - Definition, What it is, Pros and Cons
A staggered board is commonly practiced in U.S. corporate law and is a valuable takeover defense strategy against hostile takeovers.
[74]
The 5 Defenses Against a Hostile Takeover - Fmi.online
Jun 22, 2022 · Poison Pill Defense, Crown Jewels Defense, Pac-Man Defense, Greenmail Defense, and the Golden Parachute Defense.
[75]
Undoing the powerful anti-takeover force of staggered boards
The literature has established the staggered board as the most consequential of all takeover defenses and one that destroys wealth. Thus, dismantling staggered ...
[76]
Pantry Pride Launches Bid for Revlon : Target of Hostile $1.9-Billion ...
Aug 20, 1985 · Pantry Pride on Monday launched a hostile, $1.9-billion offer to buy Revlon, a company with three times its annual revenue.Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
[77]
MacAndrews & Forbes v. Revlon, Inc.
At a meeting on June 17, 1985, Perelman told Bergerac that Pantry Pride was interested in a friendly acquisition of Revlon. Perelman stated that he had ...
[78]
Revlon Agrees To Leveraged Buyout Plan - The Washington Post
Oct 3, 1985 · Revlon stockholders would receive about $56 a share in exchange for a stock that has traded as low as $32.50 in the past year.
[79]
asdasdasd : Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. | H2O
The Revlon board approved the Rights Plan in the face of an impending hostile takeover bid by Pantry Pride at $45 per share, a price which Revlon reasonably ...
[80]
PANTRY PRIDE RAISES REVLON BID TO $50 - The New York Times
Sep 28, 1985 · 10 Million Shares Bought Back Pantry Pride originally offered to acquire Revlon for $47.50 a share, but the offer was reduced to $42 after the ...
[81]
Revlon Board Accepts $1.8-Billion Buy-Out by Forstmann, Little
Oct 4, 1985 · Revlon on Thursday rebuffed Pantry Pride's attempted hostile takeover and agreed to be taken private in a $1.8-billion leveraged buy-out by ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
[82]
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/with-revlon-for-sale-ron-perelmans-hostile-takeover-era-comes-to-an-end
[83]
Sale of a major piece of Revlon Inc., the... - UPI Archives
Nov 29, 1985 · ... Revlon executives. Pantry Pride won Revlon over a spirited defense by a management group attempting a leveraged buyout largely because a ...
[84]
HIGH-STAKES DRAMA AT REVLON - The New York Times
Nov 11, 1985 · As the Revlon chief remembered it, Mr. Perelman proposed buying Revlon in a friendly deal for far less than the $58 a share he eventually paid, ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
[85]
InBev buys Bud for $52 bln to be top world brewer - Reuters
Jul 15, 2008 · To Gilpin, Anheuser shares were only worth $57 on a stand- alone basis, but she said $70 was a fair price since InBev would be able to cut costs ...
[86]
InBev Antsy For Anheuser-Busch - Forbes
Jun 25, 2008 · The offered price was an 11.4% premium to Anheuser's closing ... Anheuser-Busch's stock price closed up 1.0%, or 63 cents, to $61.76 ...
[87]
A Brazilian-Belgian company wants to buy Anheuser-Busch. What's ...
Jun 27, 2008 · Officially, Anheuser-Busch's principal resistance is financial. On Thursday, it said that InBev's $65-per-share price “does not reflect the ...
[88]
Anheuser-Busch takeover bid becomes a hostile one
Jul 8, 2008 · Anheuser-Busch takeover bid becomes a hostile one. L.A. Times ... If a majority of shareholders go along with InBev's $46-billion bid for Anheuser ...
[89]
Anheuser-Busch to cut $1 billion in costs and buy back more stock
Jun 27, 2008 · Anheuser-Busch, moving to placate investors after rejecting InBev's $46.3 billion hostile takeover bid, said Friday it plans to bolster its stock price.Missing: acquisition resistance
[90]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121321760059165613
[91]
Anheuser shareholders approve takeover by InBev - Reuters
Nov 13, 2008 · The companies agreed to merge in July after a month-long standoff that became increasingly hostile. "In the end we all agreed, the InBev ...Missing: timeline details
[92]
[PDF] Memorandum Order : U.S. v. InBev N.V./S.A., et al.
MEMORANDUM ORDER. On July 13, 2008, InBev N.V./S.A. entered into an agreement to acquire Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. for $52.Missing: regulatory | Show results with:regulatory
[93]
exv99w1 - SEC.gov
InBev (Euronext: INB) announced today that it has completed its acquisition of Anheuser-Busch (NYSE: BUD), following approval from shareholders of both ...
[94]
Dethroning The King: How Bud Got Bought Out - NPR
Nov 16, 2010 · In Dethroning the King: The Hostile Takeover of Anheuser-Busch, An American Icon, author Julie MacIntosh details the 2008 takeover.
[95]
Timeline of billionaire Elon Musk's bid to control Twitter | AP News
Oct 28, 2022 · April 29: Musk sells roughly $8.5 billion worth of shares in Tesla to help fund the purchase of Twitter, according to regulatory filings. May 5: ...
[96]
Twitter board adopts 'poison pill' after Musk's $43 billion bid ... - CNBC
Apr 15, 2022 · Twitter adopted a limited duration shareholder rights plan, often called a "poison pill," a day after billionaire Elon Musk offered to buy the company for $43 ...
[97]
Elon Musk to Acquire Twitter - PR Newswire
Apr 25, 2022 · The purchase price represents a 38% premium to Twitter's closing stock price on April 1, 2022, which was the last trading day before Mr. Musk ...Missing: shares | Show results with:shares
[98]
A timeline of Elon Musk's tumultuous Twitter acquisition - ABC News
Nov 11, 2022 · Tesla CEO Elon Musk completed the deal to acquire Twitter at his original offer price of $54.20 a share at a total cost of roughly $44 billion.
[99]
Explainer: How Elon Musk funded the $44 billion Twitter deal - Reuters
Oct 7, 2022 · Musk's $33.5 billion equity commitment included his 9.6% Twitter stake, which is worth $4 billion, and the $7.1 billion he had secured from ...
[100]
A timeline of Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter - NBC News
Nov 17, 2022 · May - June 2022. On May 13, Musk tweets he is putting the deal to acquire Twitter "temporarily on hold" pending additional information about the ...Missing: facts | Show results with:facts
[101]
Elon Musk Completes $44 Billion Deal to Own Twitter
Oct 27, 2022 · In April, he struck the deal to buy the company for $44 billion and said he would lift Twitter's content moderation policies, eliminate spam, ...
[102]
Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter at original price days before trial
Oct 4, 2022 · Elon Musk has reversed course and is again proposing to buy Twitter for $54.20 a share, according to a regulatory filing on Tuesday.
[103]
[PDF] Abstract The Effect of Takeovers on Shareholder Value
This study uses a comprehensive sample of tender offers from 1963-97 to estimate aver- age value improvements from takeover as perceived by investors.
[104]
The Free Cash Flow Theory of Takeovers: A Financial Perspective ...
Takeovers benefit shareholders of target companies. Premiums in hostile offers historically exceed 30 percent on average, and in recent times have averaged ...
[105]
Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers
takeover. The debt created in a hostile takeover (or takeover defense) of a firm suffering severe agency costs of free cash ...
[106]
[PDF] Hostile Takeovers in the 1980s: The Return to Corporate ...
Despite these reservations,. Jensen's free cash flow theory is a tenable explanation of hostile take- overs in several industries, and we try to evaluate its ...
[107]
I The Market for Corporate Control: Value, Stakeholders, and ...
Similarly, most studies find that hostile deals generate higher premiums and therefore higher target shareholder returns. For example, in the UK, Franks and ...
[108]
Do hostile mergers destroy jobs? - ScienceDirect.com
This paper provides a systematic empirical analysis of the employment effects of hostile takeovers in the United Kingdom for the period 1983–1996.
[109]
The Effect of Ownership Changes on the Employment and Wages of ...
They argue that "hostile takeovers affect industries in decline or sharp change where managers fail to shrink operations rap- idly enough or to make other ...
[110]
[PDF] Labour demand and wage effects of takeovers that involve ...
Takeovers reduce demand for labour, as merged businesses gradually achieve synergy and improve labour management. Early studies consider employment and wage ...
[111]
[PDF] Productivity, Restructuring, And The Gains From Takeovers
Breach of trust in hostile takeovers. In A. J. Auerbach (Ed.),. Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Shleifer ...
[112]
[PDF] Breach of Trust in Hostile Takeovers | Andrei Shleifer
We show how hostile takeovers can be privately beneficial and take place even when they are not socially desirable. Our argument does not invoke tax, financial ...
[113]
[PDF] Effect of Food Industry Mergers and Acquisitions ... - ERS.USDA.gov
effects of hostile takeovers on workers are mostly compositional: Hostile takeovers do not reduce workers' shares of the total rents to the firm, but they.
[114]
[PDF] hostile takeovers and expropriation of extramarginal wages: a test
Empirical research on Lazear contracts seeks to distinguish the deferred compensation explanation of rising wages from the general human capital investment ...
[115]
Short-termism of U.S. Companies is Once Again under the Spotlight
Mar 10, 2016 · Also in the sphere of economics, short-termism came under scrutiny in the late 1980s against the backdrop of a rising wave of hostile takeovers ...
[116]
Takeover Threats and Managerial Myopia
Takeover Threats and Managerial Myopia. Jeremy C. Stein. Jeremy C. Stein. Search for more articles by this author · PDF · PDF PLUS; Abstract. Add to favorites ...
[117]
[PDF] Equilibrium Short Horizons of Investors and Firms
This paper attempts to explain the often lamented pursuit by investors of short-term capital gains and the selection by firms of short-term investment projects.
[118]
Do Takeover Threats Stifle or Promote Managerial Efforts to ... - MDPI
Prior studies show that hostile takeover threats may negatively affect investment strategies, especially investment in innovation (Stein 1988; Shleifer and ...Do Takeover Threats Stifle... · 2. The Related Literature · 5. Empirical Results
[119]
[PDF] Take-over Threat and Innovation
Oct 30, 2023 · In addition, an empirical study by Agyei-Mensah and. Gounopoulos (2019) found that firms facing higher takeover threats tend to decrease their.
[120]
The Case Against Corporate Short-Termism - Milken Institute Review
Aug 4, 2017 · A number of studies have shown that it is common for companies to defer investments to meet short-term earnings targets by, for instance, ...Missing: raiders | Show results with:raiders
[121]
[PDF] Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control Henry G. Manne The ...
May 23, 2007 · That article analyzes the strategies aviiilahle to shareholders when different techniques for taking over control of a corporation are used.
[122]
[PDF] The impact of acquisitions on firm performance: A review of the ...
A number of recent studies find that acquirers with superior pre-bid performance tend to experience significant underperformance in the post-bid period.
[123]
The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence
The evidence indicates that corporate takeovers generate positive gains, that target firm shareholders benefit, and that bidding firm shareholders do not lose.
[124]
Takeovers Improve Firm Performance: Evidence from the Banking ...
Abstract. The hypothesis that takeovers provide managers with the incentive to maximize firm value is tested by examining the relationship between profitability ...
[125]
[PDF] Does takeover activity cause managerial discipline? Evidence from ...
Our study documents the causal link between the first-time enactment of M&A laws, which increased both cross-border and domestic. M&A activity, and improved ...<|separator|>
[126]
[PDF] Conflicts in the Regulation of Hostile Business Takeovers in the ...
Regulation of Hostile Takeovers hostile takeover effort in order to maximize cur- rent shareholder value (disclosure rules, manda- tory minimum durations of ...
[127]
[PDF] The Law and Finance of Anti-Takeover Statutes
Unlike lawyers, who study whether, how and why anti-takeover statutes offer protection against hostile acquisitions, financial economists have no intrinsic ...
[128]
[PDF] ANTITRUST STRATEGIES IN HOSTILE TAKEOVERS
MERGERS -- FRIENDLY AND NOT SO. FRIENDLY. FRIENDLY. ❖ Most mergers are negotiated by the two firms' top management or boards of directors. NOT SO FRIENDLY.
[129]
The role of governments in hostile takeovers - ScienceDirect.com
This paper addresses the role of governments in hostile takeovers by analysing 263 hostile takeover bids in Europe and North America during 2000–2014.
[130]
[PDF] WHO WRITES THE RULES FOR HOSTILE TAKEOVERS, AND WHY?
Abstract. Hostile takeovers are commonly thought to play a key role in rendering managers accountable to dispersed shareholders in the “Anglo-American”.
[131]
Whither hostility? - ScienceDirect.com
Hostile takeovers belong to an identifiable class of mergers that create value by separating poor managers from valuable assets.<|separator|>
[132]
Williams Act - Overview, How It Works, Importance
The Williams Act was enacted in 1968 in response to a series of hostile takeovers by large companies, which posed a risk to shareholders and company executives.What is the Williams Act? · Importance of the Williams Act
[133]
hostile takeover | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
There are two common ways for a hostile takeover to occur: a tender offer or a proxy vote. A tender offer involves the acquirer offering to purchase stock ...
[134]
[PDF] United States Takeover Guide - International Bar Association
Offers by the acquirer to the target's stockholders (whether in the context of a negotiated transaction or a hostile approach) are regulated by the SEC, which ...
[135]
Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. :: 1985 - Justia Law
The trial court concluded that a selective exchange offer, excluding Mesa, was legally impermissible. We cannot agree with such a blanket rule.
[136]
The Strategic Abuse Of The Antitrust Laws - Department of Justice
This paper identifies seven ways that firms strategically use the antitrust laws to further their own interests.
[137]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703421204576326870121498918
[138]
CFIUS Intervenes in Broadcom's Hostile Takeover Bid for Qualcomm
Mar 8, 2018 · Since late 2017, Singapore-based semiconductor company Broadcom has been pursuing a $117 billion hostile takeover bid for Qualcomm.
[139]
Broadcom's Blocked Acquisition of Qualcomm
Apr 3, 2018 · On March 4, 2018, CFIUS filed an agency notice to broaden the scope of its review to cover the proposed hostile takeover itself. CFIUS also ...
[140]
Trump Administration Blocks Broadcom's Attempted Takeover of ...
Mar 16, 2018 · Broadcom had been pursuing a US$117 billion hostile takeover of Qualcomm, which reportedly would have been the largest ever in the technology ...