Pac-Man defense: Difference between revisions
names of ghosts not germane to article |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
In 1984, [[Securities Exchange Commission]] commissioners said that the Pac-Man defense was cause for “serious concern,” but balked at endorsing any federal prohibition against the tactic. The commissioners acknowledged a Pac-Man defense can benefit shareholders under certain circumstances, but emphasized that management, in resorting to this tactic, must bear the burden of proving it isn’t acting solely out of its desire to stay in office. One concern is that the money spent to gain control of the intruding company, which includes payment for the services of lawyers and other professionals needed to mount that defense, represents substantial funds that could have otherwise been used to improve the company’s business or increase its profits.<ref>{{citation|url=http://business.inquirer.net/money/columns/view/20100121-248644/Reverse-Pac-Man-strategy|title=Reverse Pac-Man strategy|author=Raul J. Palabrica|publisher=Philippine Daily Inquirer|date=01/21/2010}}</ref> |
In 1984, [[Securities Exchange Commission]] commissioners said that the Pac-Man defense was cause for “serious concern,” but balked at endorsing any federal prohibition against the tactic. The commissioners acknowledged a Pac-Man defense can benefit shareholders under certain circumstances, but emphasized that management, in resorting to this tactic, must bear the burden of proving it isn’t acting solely out of its desire to stay in office. One concern is that the money spent to gain control of the intruding company, which includes payment for the services of lawyers and other professionals needed to mount that defense, represents substantial funds that could have otherwise been used to improve the company’s business or increase its profits.<ref>{{citation|url=http://business.inquirer.net/money/columns/view/20100121-248644/Reverse-Pac-Man-strategy|title=Reverse Pac-Man strategy|author=Raul J. Palabrica|publisher=Philippine Daily Inquirer|date=01/21/2010}}</ref> |
||
The next Pac-Man defense to occur was in 1988, when [[American Brands]] Inc., fighting a hostile takeover attempt by [[E-II Holdings]] Inc., announced a cash tender offer for E-II.<ref>{{citation|title=Origins of the 'Pac-Man' Defense|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/23/business/origins-of-the-pac-man-defense.html?pagewanted=1|date=January 23, 1988}}</ref> In 2007, British mining giant [[Rio Tinto]] PLC, fighting off an unsolicited $131.57 billion takeover bid from Australian rival [[BHP Billiton]] PLC, considered turning the tables on its rival and launching a counterbid for BHP.<ref>{{citation|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119515005104594432.html|title=Will Rio Play Pac-Man?|date=November 16, 2007}}</ref> In 2009, [[Cadbury plc]] considered trying a Pac-Man defense if no bid emerged to challenge [[Kraft Foods]]' hostile offer.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/revenge_is_sweet_inO3NA2nIo1lvK6gZdV9HI|title=Revenge is Sweet|author=Josh Kosman|date=November 24, 2009|publisher=New York Post}}</ref> |
The next Pac-Man defense to occur was in 1988, when [[American Brands]] Inc., fighting a hostile takeover attempt by [[Samsonite#Milestones|E-II Holdings]] Inc., announced a cash tender offer for E-II.<ref>{{citation|title=Origins of the 'Pac-Man' Defense|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/23/business/origins-of-the-pac-man-defense.html?pagewanted=1|date=January 23, 1988}}</ref> In 2007, British mining giant [[Rio Tinto]] PLC, fighting off an unsolicited $131.57 billion takeover bid from Australian rival [[BHP Billiton]] PLC, considered turning the tables on its rival and launching a counterbid for BHP.<ref>{{citation|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119515005104594432.html|title=Will Rio Play Pac-Man?|date=November 16, 2007}}</ref> In 2009, [[Cadbury plc]] considered trying a Pac-Man defense if no bid emerged to challenge [[Kraft Foods]]' hostile offer.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/revenge_is_sweet_inO3NA2nIo1lvK6gZdV9HI|title=Revenge is Sweet|author=Josh Kosman|date=November 24, 2009|publisher=New York Post}}</ref> |
||
The name refers to the star of a video game [[Pac-Man]], in which the hero is at first chased around a maze of dots by 4 ghosts. However, after eating a "Power Pellet" dot, he is able to chase and devour said [[Pac-Man#Ghosts|ghosts]]. The term (though not the technique) was coined by buyout guru [[Bruce Wasserstein]]. |
The name refers to the star of a video game [[Pac-Man]], in which the hero is at first chased around a maze of dots by 4 ghosts. However, after eating a "Power Pellet" dot, he is able to chase and devour said [[Pac-Man#Ghosts|ghosts]]. The term (though not the technique) was coined by buyout guru [[Bruce Wasserstein]]. |
||
Revision as of 20:17, 8 August 2010
The Pac-Man defense is a defensive option to stave off a hostile takeover in which a company that is threatened with a hostile takeover "turns the tables" by attempting to acquire its would-be buyer.
A major example in U.S. corporate history is the attempted hostile takeover of Martin Marietta by Bendix Corporation in 1982. In response, Martin Marietta started buying Bendix stock with the aim of assuming control over the company. Bendix persuaded Allied Corporation to act as a "white knight," and the company was sold to Allied the same year. The incident was labeled a "Pac-Man defense" in retrospect.
In 1984, Securities Exchange Commission commissioners said that the Pac-Man defense was cause for “serious concern,” but balked at endorsing any federal prohibition against the tactic. The commissioners acknowledged a Pac-Man defense can benefit shareholders under certain circumstances, but emphasized that management, in resorting to this tactic, must bear the burden of proving it isn’t acting solely out of its desire to stay in office. One concern is that the money spent to gain control of the intruding company, which includes payment for the services of lawyers and other professionals needed to mount that defense, represents substantial funds that could have otherwise been used to improve the company’s business or increase its profits.[1]
The next Pac-Man defense to occur was in 1988, when American Brands Inc., fighting a hostile takeover attempt by E-II Holdings Inc., announced a cash tender offer for E-II.[2] In 2007, British mining giant Rio Tinto PLC, fighting off an unsolicited $131.57 billion takeover bid from Australian rival BHP Billiton PLC, considered turning the tables on its rival and launching a counterbid for BHP.[3] In 2009, Cadbury plc considered trying a Pac-Man defense if no bid emerged to challenge Kraft Foods' hostile offer.[4]
The name refers to the star of a video game Pac-Man, in which the hero is at first chased around a maze of dots by 4 ghosts. However, after eating a "Power Pellet" dot, he is able to chase and devour said ghosts. The term (though not the technique) was coined by buyout guru Bruce Wasserstein.
Bibliography
- Big Deal: The Battle for the Control of America's Leading Corporations, Bruce Wasserstein, (1988, ISBN 0-446-67521-0)
- "Pac-Man Defense" http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pac-man-defense.asp
References
- ^ Raul J. Palabrica (01/21/2010), Reverse Pac-Man strategy, Philippine Daily Inquirer
{{citation}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Origins of the 'Pac-Man' Defense, January 23, 1988
- ^ Will Rio Play Pac-Man?, November 16, 2007
- ^ Josh Kosman (November 24, 2009), Revenge is Sweet, New York Post
External links
 | This business term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |