Hostile Takeover

Nose Plugs 4 Less has been run poorly for a decade. It used to be the dominant nosebleed-preventer in the industry. But after years of, uh...leakage, the stock has come all the way down from $100 a share to $20 today.

Frustrated investors who bought in at 100 and 80 and 72 and 53 and 45 and 33 have written reams of complaint letters to the board, who just doesn't seem to listen to what is obvious as a fix. They have to fire the CEO and put someone in power who will stop the bleeding.

But they won't. For whatever reason.

So now, these angry shareholders (and yes, they are hostile) get together and openly try to buy the company under a process where they buy up as many shares as they can. And then, finally, when they have a majority ownership in the company, they start electing new board members: ones who actually listen.

Remember that it’s the common shareholders who elect the board who hires the CEO who hires everyone else, pretty much.

And hostile takeovers still happen these days. Here’s one of the juicier ones, and arguably worst wealth destroying deal-passes in history. Microsoft tried to go hostile and buy Yahoo in 2008...and the board didn’t listen. Bad things happened. Yahoo left a fortune on the table when they didn't accept the hostile bid.

So hostile takeovers are not necessarily bad. They’re only bad for poorly run companies. And even then, the common shareholders who actually own the company eventually get paid.

So yeah. The best way to avoid a hostile takeover is always to plug the leak before it gets to be a problem.