Hostile Takeover Explained: How It Works, Types, and Examples
Summary:
A hostile takeover is an acquisition where a company is taken over against the wishes of its management. In this detailed guide, we’ll explain how hostile takeovers work, key methods such as tender offers and proxy fights, common defenses like the poison pill, and real-world examples of successful and failed hostile takeovers. The article also explores the reasons why companies resort to hostile takeovers and how targeted companies defend themselves.
A hostile takeover refers to an acquisition attempt where a company (the acquirer) seeks to gain control of another company (the target) against the latter’s wishes. These takeovers can be contentious, disruptive, and even destructive, depending on the circumstances. They often occur because the acquiring company believes that the target is undervalued or sees an opportunity to gain competitive advantages by taking control.
Hostile takeovers are typically executed in one of two ways: through a tender offer directly to shareholders or a proxy fight to replace the company’s management. Both methods aim to bypass the opposition of the target company’s board of directors and force through the acquisition. In this article, we will delve deeper into how hostile takeovers work, the various strategies used to carry them out, common defenses companies employ, and examples of notable hostile takeovers in the business world.
What is a hostile takeover?
A hostile takeover occurs when an acquiring company attempts to take control of a target company against the wishes of its board of directors. In a hostile takeover, the acquirer bypasses the target company’s management and goes directly to shareholders, often offering to buy shares at a premium price. If successful, the acquiring company gains majority control of the target and is able to dictate the future of the company, including replacing the management team.
Hostile takeovers are viewed unfavorably by many due to the aggressive nature of the approach, which can lead to tension between the two companies, uncertainty for employees, and volatility in the stock market. However, hostile takeovers can be financially beneficial for the acquiring company if they see strategic advantages in acquiring the target.
Methods of executing a hostile takeover
Hostile takeovers can be executed in several ways, but the two primary methods are:
- Tender offer: The acquiring company offers to purchase shares of the target company at a price above the current market value. This offer is made directly to the shareholders of the target company, bypassing the company’s board of directors. If enough shareholders accept the offer, the acquirer gains control of the company.
- Proxy fight: In this approach, the acquiring company seeks to convince the shareholders to vote out the existing board of directors and replace them with individuals more favorable to the takeover. The acquirer will often campaign to replace the board during the company’s annual meeting or through a special vote, with the goal of gaining enough support to control the company’s future direction.
Why do hostile takeovers happen?
Hostile takeovers can occur for several reasons, all of which are related to the perceived benefits or opportunities that the acquiring company sees in the target. Here are the most common reasons hostile takeovers happen:
- Undervaluation: The acquirer believes that the target company’s shares are undervalued, making it a prime opportunity to purchase the company at a bargain.
- Strategic synergies: The acquiring company sees strategic advantages, such as new technology, expanded market share, or valuable intellectual property, in taking over the target company.
- Activist shareholders: In some cases, activist shareholders who are dissatisfied with the current management of a company may push for a hostile takeover in an attempt to force changes in company operations, leadership, or strategy.
- Cost-cutting opportunities: Hostile takeovers can also occur when the acquirer believes it can streamline the target’s operations, cut costs, and increase profitability.
Defenses against a hostile takeover
Target companies do not simply accept hostile takeover bids without a fight. In fact, many companies employ a range of defense strategies to deter or thwart such takeovers. These defense mechanisms can be preemptive or reactive, depending on how prepared the company is for the possibility of a hostile bid.
Poison pill
The poison pill is one of the most common defenses against a hostile takeover. Officially known as a “shareholder rights plan,” the poison pill allows existing shareholders to purchase additional shares at a discount, diluting the ownership interest of the acquiring company. The goal is to make it prohibitively expensive for the acquirer to complete the takeover.
Golden parachute
A golden parachute is another defense strategy, which involves providing lucrative compensation packages (bonuses, severance pay, stock options, etc.) to key executives in the event they are terminated as a result of the takeover. This creates a financial disincentive for the acquiring company, as it would need to pay out these large sums upon completing the takeover.
Crown jewel defense
In this defense, the target company sells or threatens to sell its most valuable assets—its “crown jewels”—if the takeover is completed. This reduces the attractiveness of the company to the acquirer, as the most desirable assets would no longer be part of the deal.
Pac-Man defense
The Pac-Man defense is a more aggressive strategy in which the target company turns the tables by attempting to buy shares of the acquiring company, effectively launching a counter-takeover. While rare, this defense can deter hostile bids by making the takeover battle more costly and complex.
White knight
A white knight defense involves the target company seeking out a more favorable acquirer, or “white knight,” to make a friendly takeover bid. This allows the target company to avoid the hostile acquirer while still securing the benefits of a merger or acquisition.
The role of antitrust regulations in hostile takeovers
Hostile takeovers may seem like aggressive business maneuvers, but they are subject to significant regulatory oversight, especially in relation to antitrust laws. Governments around the world have established rules to ensure that no single company gains excessive control of a market through acquisitions or mergers, which would stifle competition and harm consumers.
In the United States, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act play crucial roles in regulating hostile takeovers. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) carefully review proposed takeovers to determine whether they would result in unfair market dominance. If a hostile takeover leads to a monopoly or reduces competition in a particular industry, it may be blocked by the government.
A recent example of antitrust concerns arose during the attempted hostile takeover of Qualcomm by Broadcom in 2018. Although Broadcom made an aggressive $117 billion bid for Qualcomm, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and other regulatory bodies raised concerns about national security and the potential for reduced competition in the semiconductor market. In a rare move, the U.S. government intervened and blocked the acquisition, citing concerns about the dominance of foreign entities in critical industries.
The impact of hostile takeovers on employees and company culture
While much of the attention surrounding hostile takeovers focuses on shareholders and corporate strategies, one often-overlooked aspect is the significant impact these takeovers have on the employees and internal culture of the target company. Hostile takeovers can introduce uncertainty, anxiety, and instability in the workplace, which can lead to long-term negative consequences for both the employees and the company’s overall performance.
Employees of a target company often face uncertainty regarding their job security, potential restructuring, or even mass layoffs following a hostile acquisition. The new management may implement cost-cutting measures, eliminating positions deemed redundant. This was evident in the 2005 hostile takeover of PeopleSoft by Oracle, which resulted in over 5,000 layoffs as Oracle sought to streamline operations and integrate the software company’s assets into its own. The fallout from this acquisition not only impacted employee morale but also caused significant disruptions to PeopleSoft’s remaining workforce, leading to reduced productivity and high turnover rates in the following years.
Real-world examples of hostile takeovers
Hostile takeovers are not just a theoretical concept—they have played out in the real world many times. Below are some notable examples of both successful and unsuccessful hostile takeovers.
Sanofi and Genzyme
One of the most well-known examples of a successful hostile takeover is the pharmaceutical giant Sanofi’s acquisition of Genzyme in 2011. After failed friendly attempts, Sanofi bypassed Genzyme’s management and went directly to the shareholders, offering a premium price for the shares. In the end, Sanofi successfully acquired Genzyme, expanding its presence in the niche market of rare genetic disorder treatments.
Carl Icahn and Clorox
On the other hand, Carl Icahn’s attempts to take over household goods company Clorox in 2011 are an example of an unsuccessful hostile takeover. Clorox fought back against multiple bids and implemented a shareholder rights plan to protect itself. Ultimately, Icahn’s efforts to acquire Clorox failed, demonstrating that even well-funded takeover attempts can be derailed by a determined management team.
Conclusion
Hostile takeovers represent one of the most aggressive forms of business acquisition, often leading to battles between management teams and shareholders. While they can offer significant financial rewards for the acquiring company, they also pose risks, including reputational damage, operational challenges, and the potential for backlash from employees and stakeholders. Understanding how hostile takeovers work, the motivations behind them, and the defenses that companies can use is essential for any business leader or investor looking to navigate the complex world of mergers and acquisitions.
Frequently asked questions
What is a hostile takeover?
A hostile takeover is an acquisition attempt in which the acquiring company seeks to take control of the target company against its management’s wishes, often through a tender offer or a proxy fight.
What are the main defenses against hostile takeovers?
Companies can use several defenses, including poison pills, golden parachutes, crown jewel defenses, and the Pac-Man defense, to prevent hostile takeovers.
What are some examples of hostile takeovers?
Notable examples include Sanofi’s successful takeover of Genzyme and Carl Icahn’s failed attempts to acquire Clorox.
Why do companies launch hostile takeovers?
Companies launch hostile takeovers for reasons such as believing the target is undervalued, seeking strategic synergies, or wanting to make operational changes.
Key takeaways
- A hostile takeover occurs when an acquirer seeks to control a company against its management’s wishes.
- Key methods of hostile takeovers include tender offers and proxy fights.
- Common defenses against hostile takeovers include poison pills, golden parachutes, and crown jewel strategies.
- Real-world examples of hostile takeovers include Sanofi’s acquisition of Genzyme and Carl Icahn’s failed bid for Clorox.
Table of Contents