Jonestown Defense

This is a radical attitude against hostile takeover canvas. Seems nuts for most people, and always needs a double check over the corporation history to understand this act. For example, competition can be much more related to greed than about efficiency. Usually officers, CEOs, and holding families know each other, and this is kind of tradition. Selling a corporation, can be further than transferring assets ownership. Sometimes, it can mean something so serious that controllers prefer to play against the odds. The forgotten chance can be the deal for players that surely does not welcome the raider.

Also, there are situations wherever the target company will only have disadvantages in a eventual merger. Maybe acting with radical ways will not turn over the play, but can save some scarce assets, if any. Increasing company debts, selling crown jewels, seems suicidal nonsense. But desperate of hostile takeover, that even investment bankers cannot handle, puts these possibilities in discussion.

As stressed before, if takeover can be very harmful for employees and management of target corporation on the long-term, on short, can be worse. Some critical companies, that in past where major players, may request severe plans. Some raiders will tend to let proud aside and make necessary changes. Results and forecast are ever a quiz.

Anyway, that's a radical way of facing a takeover. Until reaching this red line, there lots of strategies, defenses, tactics, legal mechanics, ideas and banking ways to make use of. A severe problem, is ever quite a quiz in that precise economic and historic moment. But nowadays, investment banking and corporate law has so many instruments, for most of cases, tested and matured along years of corporate finance history.