Sector, thanks for your comprehensive report on your impressions of the meeting.
The subsequent discussion of MRV's cash accumulation to avert a hostile takeover led me to do some research on hostile takeovers. There was an interesting article on this topic in last Sunday's L.A. Times called "Falling Stocks Could Make Unfriendly Bids More Popular; With lower market valuations making many companies more attractive acquisition targets, some experts foresee a comeback for the hostile takeover
By DEBORA VRANA, TIMES STAFF WRITER Los Angeles Times
Sunday October 25, 1998 Home Edition Business, Page 1"
Sorry I can't provide a link directly to the article but their WEB page is: latimes.com
In discussing the ways to defend against a hostile takeover, the article says:
"Unfriendly acquisitions can turn into costly, drawn-out fights, given all of the ways a target can defend itself. Besides classic poison pills, other defenses include filing lawsuits, threatening to break up the company without a shareholder vote and going on a shopping binge for firms that the suitor would have no interest in owning. In September, about 45 companies nationwide enhanced their hostile-takeover defenses by updating or adopting new poison pills, according to Securities Data."
Trying to find a link directly to that article, I did come across a subsequent article on mergers she wrote published Oct. 26th:
As Stocks Decline, Firms Find Other Ways to Pay for Growth
latimes.com;
After doing some reading, I'm not convinced that holding excess cash is MRV's best method of averting a hostile takeover. |
