73
Replies
Hi Hunt
I was intrigued with Phillip's mention of a "Hostile Takeover", so did some poking around of my own. As with anything, I suppose what I found should be taken with a grain of salt, but my first search of just wondering what constituted a "Hostile Takeover" led me to WikiPedia.
According to WikiPedia, a Hostile Takeover is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover#Hostile_takeovers
Hostile takeovers
A hostile takeover allows a suitor to bypass a target company's management unwilling to agree to a merger or takeover. A takeover is considered "hostile" if the target company's board rejects the offer, but the bidder continues to pursue it, or the bidder makes the offer without informing the target company's board beforehand.
A hostile takeover can be conducted in several ways. A tender offer can be made where the acquiring company makes a public offer at a fixed price above the current market price. Tender offers in the USA are regulated with the Williams Act. An acquiring company can also engage in a proxy fight, whereby it tries to persuade enough shareholders, usually a simple majority, to replace the management with a new one which will approve the takeover. Another method involves quietly purchasing enough stock on the open market, known as a creeping tender offer, to effect a change in management. In all of these ways, management resists the acquisition but it is carried out anyway.
The main consequence of a bid being considered hostile is practical rather than legal. If the board of the target cooperates, the bidder can conduct extensive due diligence into the affairs of the target company. It can find out exactly what it is taking on before it makes a commitment. But a hostile bidder knows about the target by only the information that is publicly available, and so takes a greater risk. Also, banks are less willing to back hostile bids with the loans that are usually needed to finance the takeover. However, some investors may proceed with hostile takeovers because they are aware of mismanagement by the board and are trying to force the issue into public and potentially legal scrutiny.
According to an article on ZDNet UK posted August 25, 2005:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39214956,00.htm
Adobe took another step towards completing its takeover of digital media company Macromedia on Wednesday,
after both company's shareholders approved the deal.
Of the 75 percent of outstanding Adobe shares voted, approximately 99 percent were cast in favour of the acquisition. Of the 73.2 percent of outstanding Macromedia shares voted, 99.8 percent were cast in favour.
Now certainly everyone is entitled to their own view of events, and certainly not everyone was all happy about the acquisition, but based on what I read I'd hardly call it a hostile takeover. It seems that the shareholders of both companies were overwhelmingly positive to the deal.
That's what puzzled me about it. Normally when something such as a hostile takeover is looming, the media is all over it and that's like all you hear about day after day until it subsides and normalizes. And I never recalled seeing anything along those lines. So I was more than a bit confused by the use of the term.
Cheers... Rick 
Captiv8r wrote:
Hi Hunt
-------------------snip-------------------
Now certainly everyone is entitled to their own view of events, and certainly not everyone was all happy about the acquisition, but based on what I read I'd hardly call it a hostile takeover. It seems that the shareholders of both companies were overwhelmingly positive to the deal.That's what puzzled me about it. Normally when something such as a hostile takeover is looming, the media is all over it and that's like all you hear about day after day until it subsides and normalizes. And I never recalled seeing anything along those lines. So I was more than a bit confused by the use of the term.
Cheers... Rick
The operative word is the shareholders. As long as the shareholders want it. Its okay. The employees and Customers don't figure into the equation.
LOL, I might respectfully suggest that molten lava would suddenly develop frost if employees and customers were to ever be figured into such deals. 
Call me jaded if you like, but to me the bottom line is that it's always been about the bottom line. It never has been and never will be about employees or customers. We simply must adapt. Like it or not. I'm not preaching, just stating a fact.
When you think about it, the unfortunate part of it all is that if those that are on the side of not being happy with things choose to vote with their feet by refusing to purchase future products, the new conglomerate is likely too large to really notice it much, if at all. Because with each acquisition it seems to grow a bit more insulation from such things and become more tolerant of a few lost sales. Overall, the larger company simply grows and shareholders are generally happy when that happens. So even in the end it's viewed as an overall favorable move.
Just an observation... Rick
AdChoices