PeopleSoft and Oracle
-
Can someone explain (or give me link) as to how hostile takeovers work? Why doesn't the "just say no" theory hold. Now it's going to court.[^] :confused: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
Can someone explain (or give me link) as to how hostile takeovers work? Why doesn't the "just say no" theory hold. Now it's going to court.[^] :confused: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Oracle could potentially buy 60% of the shares and take over the board. However, PeopleSoft has a "poison pill" that would (I think) dole out more shares to existing users in the event of a hostile takeover, thereby making a buyout prohibitively expensive. So, Oracle is going to court to try to have the "poison pill" removed. At least, that's what I remember reading last week. I could be wrong.
Jon Sagara Roomier! Brawnier! Versatilier!
My Articles -
Can someone explain (or give me link) as to how hostile takeovers work? Why doesn't the "just say no" theory hold. Now it's going to court.[^] :confused: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Often, the controller of such a company has only, e.g., 20% or 30% of the shares. All the rest of the shares are divided by people with less than 1% of the shares. If you buy more than 30% of the shares from "the small guys", you are the new company owner :) There are counter attacks to hostile takeovers, e.g., leveraged recapitalization, in which a company makes itself less desirable by borrowing a large sum of money and distributing it to its shareholders, by either initiating a buyback program or paying large dividends. The company becomes attractive to small investors, but can defeat the hostile takeover. Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
Often, the controller of such a company has only, e.g., 20% or 30% of the shares. All the rest of the shares are divided by people with less than 1% of the shares. If you buy more than 30% of the shares from "the small guys", you are the new company owner :) There are counter attacks to hostile takeovers, e.g., leveraged recapitalization, in which a company makes itself less desirable by borrowing a large sum of money and distributing it to its shareholders, by either initiating a buyback program or paying large dividends. The company becomes attractive to small investors, but can defeat the hostile takeover. Yes, even I am blogging now!
51% is a very nice number to keep ;P
This demographic will quite happily click on shiny things however:laugh:
Found on Bash.org [erno] hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
-
Can someone explain (or give me link) as to how hostile takeovers work? Why doesn't the "just say no" theory hold. Now it's going to court.[^] :confused: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: Can someone explain (or give me link) as to how hostile takeovers work? Why doesn't the "just say no" theory hold. Well, in the case of publicly traded companies, the person saying no may not be acting in the best interest of the shareholders. According to that article, 61% of the shares were voted to accept the Oracle offer, but the board thinks the company is worth more. My 2 cents worth is the board in this case knows that it's going to be out on the street before the ink is dry on the signatures, so they're protecting themselves instead of acting in the best interest of the shareholders, which is what they're 'supposed' to be doing.
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Can someone explain (or give me link) as to how hostile takeovers work? Why doesn't the "just say no" theory hold. Well, in the case of publicly traded companies, the person saying no may not be acting in the best interest of the shareholders. According to that article, 61% of the shares were voted to accept the Oracle offer, but the board thinks the company is worth more. My 2 cents worth is the board in this case knows that it's going to be out on the street before the ink is dry on the signatures, so they're protecting themselves instead of acting in the best interest of the shareholders, which is what they're 'supposed' to be doing.
[just to follow on from your comments] If money is the prime concern (which it is in a public company) they you're right. Maybe the original PeopleSoft builders can't move on. Hard to let go of you life's work. Bare facts - money talks, ...
-
51% is a very nice number to keep ;P
This demographic will quite happily click on shiny things however:laugh:
Found on Bash.org [erno] hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
Steve McLenithan wrote: 51% is a very nice number to keep That's why the brazilian government always keeps more than 55% on strategic companies (e.g., oil and steel). Actually, sometimes you need to give up shares for growing a company, and keeping 51% is unrealistic. Sometimes, it'd be better be the owner of 10% of 10 bi than the owner of 50% of 1 mi. Sometimes, not :) Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
Can someone explain (or give me link) as to how hostile takeovers work? Why doesn't the "just say no" theory hold. Now it's going to court.[^] :confused: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
I always wonder in these cases if the directors are acting in the best interests of the shareholders or the best interests of the directors. - If Peoplesoft releases a whole load of shares as a poison-pill they will also be diluting there own shares. Oracle can still rush around and buy these new shares up at a lesses value, but probably won't have time before the AGM and the new directors are elected. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
Can someone explain (or give me link) as to how hostile takeovers work? Why doesn't the "just say no" theory hold. Now it's going to court.[^] :confused: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
A related link: The PeopleSoft Poison Pill - what is it?[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
A related link: The PeopleSoft Poison Pill - what is it?[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: A related link: Thanks! I thought this was interesting: Built into customer contracts since June 2003 is a clause that says if PeopleSoft is acquired by either Oracle or SAP and either company does not support and develop modules as PeopleSoft would have, customers have the right to claim anywhere from two to five times their money back. wow. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing