Originally Posted by Warp
This would only be a consideration IF he still had a controlling interest and he sold all of it to one party, or one all of it + whatever else was available gave the other party a controlling interest.
Plus in a hostile takeover companies don't necessarily pay a premium 'get get a controlling share', they often pay a premium because the target corporation takes steps to try to prevent the hostile takeover by making acquisition more expensive. If he were to just up and sell it there wouldn't be anything 'hostile' about it.
Warp - that's what the "hostile" means in "hostile takeover". They're buying a company that isn't for sale....or is for sale but not at the price being tendered. They buy what they can. BOD recommends shareholders not accept. Offer goes up. Rinse and repeat.
Along the way they often acquire enough shares to replace the BOD and move the transaction in their favor...(BOD recommends shareholders accept the offer). 51% isn't required to have a controlling interest in these situations. It depends how many shares other interests hold as one voting block. A relatively small percentage, maybe 5 or 10% held by one interest can wield enormous influence. Once you get enough to start replacing board members, you have effectively taken over a company. From that point, you might choose to acquire it outright, or not.
Getting to the point now, IF more of society were just like you are (and lets not forget CF in this) in your law enforcement grudge. I would spite the Constitution and do everything in my power to see that your protections were stripped away as soon as possible. I would do this just to throw it in your face because I could. I LOVE the Constitution BTW, I just really dislike dirtbags like yourself. -- BlackPaladin
Last edited by certifiedfunds; 09-29-2012 at 22:06..