Exam 3: The Corporate Takeover Market:

The primary forms of proxy contests are those for seats on the board of directors, those concerning management proposals, and those seeking to force management to take a particular action.

Inbev Acquires an American Icon For many Americans, Budweiser is synonymous with American beer and American beer is synonymous with Anheuser-Busch (AB). Ownership of the American icon changed hands on July 14, 2008, when beer giant Anheuser Busch agreed to be acquired by Belgian brewer InBev for $52 billion in an all-cash deal. The combined firms would have annual revenue of about $36 billion and control about 25 percent of the global beer market and 40 percent of the U.S. market. The purchase is the most recent in a wave of consolidation in the global beer industry. The consolidation reflected an attempt to offset rising commodity costs by achieving greater scale and purchasing power. While likely to generate cost savings of about $1.5 billion annually by 2011, InBev stated publicly that the transaction is more about the two firms being complementary rather than overlapping. The announcement marked a reversal from AB's position the previous week when it said publicly that the InBev offer undervalued the firm and subsequently sued InBev for "misleading statements" it had allegedly made about the strength of its financing. To court public support, AB publicized its history as a major benefactor in its hometown area (St. Louis, Missouri). The firm also argued that its own long-term business plan would create more shareholder value than the proposed deal. AB also investigated the possibility of acquiring the half of Grupo Modelo, the Mexican brewer of Corona beer, which it did not already own to make the transaction too expensive for InBev. While it publicly professed to want a friendly transaction, InBev wasted no time in turning up the heat. The firm launched a campaign to remove Anheuser's board and replace it with its own slate of candidates, including a Busch family member. However, AB was under substantial pressure from major investors, including Warren Buffet, to agree to the deal since the firm's stock had been lackluster during the preceding several years. In an effort to gain additional shareholder support, InBev raised its initial $65 bid to $70. To eliminate concerns over its ability to finance the deal, InBev agreed to fully document its credit sources rather than rely on the more traditional but less certain credit commitment letters. In an effort to placate AB's board, management, and the myriad politicians who railed against the proposed transaction, InBev agreed to name the new firm Anheuser-Busch InBev and keep Budweiser as the new firm's flagship brand and St. Louis as its North American headquarters. In addition, AB would be given two seats on the board, including August A. Busch IV, AB's CEO and patriarch of the firm's founding family. InBev also announced that AB's 12 U.S. breweries would remain open. -Why would rising commodity prices spark industry consolidation?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the friendly versus hostile approach to a corporate takeover?

An astute bidder should always analyze the target firm's possible defenses such as golden parachutes for key employees and poison pills before making a bid.

Alcoa Easily Overwhelms Reynolds’ Takeover Defenses Alcoa reacted quickly to a three-way intercontinental combination of aluminum companies aimed at challenging its dominance of the Western World aluminum market by disclosing an unsolicited takeover bid for Reynolds Metals in early August 1999. The offer consisted of $4.3 billion, or $66.44 a share, plus the assumption of $1.5 billion in Reynolds’ outstanding debt. Reynolds, a perennial marginally profitable competitor in the aluminum industry, appeared to be particularly vulnerable, since other logical suitors or potential white knights such as Canada’s Alcan Aluminum, France’s Pechiney SA, and Switzerland’s Alusuisse Lonza Group AG were already involved in a three-way merger. Alcoa’s letter from its chief executive indicated that it wanted to pursue a friendly deal but suggested that it may pursue a full-blown hostile bid if the two sides could not begin discussions within a week. Reynolds appeared to be highly vulnerable because of its poor financial performance amid falling aluminum prices worldwide and because of its weak takeover defenses. It appeared that a hostile bidder could initiate a mail-in solicitation for shareholder consent at any time. Moreover, major Reynolds’ shareholders began to pressure the board. Its largest single shareholder, Highfields Capital Management, a holder of more than four million shares, demanded that the Board create a special committee of independent directors with its own counsel and instruct Merrill Lynch to open an auction for Reynolds. Despite pressure, the Reynolds’ board rejected Alcoa’s bid as inadequate. Alcoa’s response was to say that it would initiate an all cash tender offer for all of Reynolds’ stock and simultaneously solicit shareholder support through a proxy contest for replacing the Reynolds’ board and dismantling Reynolds’ takeover defenses. Notwithstanding the public posturing by both sides, Reynolds capitulated on August 19, slightly more than two weeks from receipt of the initial solicitation, and agreed to be acquired by Alcoa. The agreement contained a thirty-day window during which Reynolds could entertain other bids. However, if Reynolds should choose to go with another offer, it would have to pay Alcoa a $100 million break-up fee. Under the agreement, which was approved by both boards, each share of Reynolds was exchanged for 1.06 shares of Alcoa stock. When announced, the transaction was worth $4.46 billion and valued each Reynolds share at $70.88, based on an Alcoa closing price of $66.875 on August 19, 1999. The $70.88 price per share of Reynolds suggested a puny 3.9 percent premium to Reynolds’ closing price of $68.25 as of the close of August 19. The combined annual revenues of the two companies totaled $20.5 billion and accounted for about 21.5 percent of the Western World market for aluminum. To receive antitrust approval, the combined companies were required divest selected operations. -In your judgment, why was Alcoa able to complete the transaction by offering such a small premium over Reynolds' share price at the time the takeover was proposed?

In response to Microsoft's efforts to acquire the firm, the Yahoo board adopted a "change-in-control" compensation plan in May 2008. The plan states that if a Yahoo employee is terminated by Yahoo without cause (i.e., the employee is performing their duties appropriately) of if an employee leaves of their own volition due to a change in their position or responsibilities within two years after Microsoft acquires a controlling interest in Yahoo, the employee will receive one year's salary. Also, the plan provides for accelerated vesting of all stock options. Yahoo notes that the adoption of severance plan is an effort to ensure that employees are treated fairly if Microsoft wins control. Microsoft views the tactic as an effort to discourage a takeover. With whom do you agree and why?

Pfizer Acquires Warner-Lambert in a Hostile Takeover In 1996 Pfizer and Warner Lambert (Warner) agreed to co-market worldwide the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, which had been developed by Warner. The combined marketing effort was extremely successful with combined 1999 sales reaching $3.5 billion, a 60% increase over 1998. Before entering into the marketing agreement, Pfizer had entered into a confidentiality agreement with Warner that contained a standstill clause that, among other things, prohibited Pfizer from making a merger proposal unless invited to do so by Warner or until a third party made such a proposal. In late 1998, Pfizer became aware of numerous rumors of a possible merger between Warner and some unknown entity. William C. Steere, chair and CEO of Pfizer, sent a letter on October 15, 1999, to Lodeijk de Vink, chair and CEO of Warner, inquiring about the potential for Pfizer to broaden its current strategic relationship to include a merger. More than 2 weeks passed before Steere received a written response in which de Vink expressed concern that Steere’s letter violated the spirit of the standstill agreement by indicating interest in a merger. Speculation about an impending merger between Warner and American Home Products (AHP) came to a head on November 19, 1999, when an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal announcing an impending merger of equals between Warner and AHP valued at $58.3 billion. The public announcement of the agreement to merge between Warner and AHP released Pfizer from the standstill agreement. Tinged with frustration and impatience at what Pfizer saw as stalling tactics, Steere outlined in the letter the primary reasons why the proposed combination of the two companies made sense to Warner’s shareholders. In addition to a substantial premium over Warner’s current share price, Pfizer argued that combining the companies would result in a veritable global powerhouse in the pharmaceutical industry. Furthermore, the firm’s product lines are highly complementary, including Warner’s over-the-counter drug presence and substantial pipeline of new drugs and Pfizer’s powerful global marketing and sales infrastructure. Steere also argued that the combined companies could generate annual cost savings of at least $1.2 billion annually within 1 year following the completion of the merger. These savings would come from centralizing computer systems and research and development (R&D) activities, consolidating more than 100 manufacturing facilities, and combining two headquarters and multiple sales and administrative offices in 30 countries. Pfizer also believed that the two companies’ cultures were highly complementary. In addition to the letter from Steere to de Vink, on November 4, 1999, Pfizer announced that it had commenced a legal action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Warner, Warner’s directors, and AHP. The action sought to enjoin the approximately $2 billion termination fee and the stock option granted by Warner-Lambert to AHP to acquire 14.9% of Warner’s common stock valued at $83.81 per share as part of their merger agreement. The lawsuit charged that the termination fee and stock options were excessively onerous and were not in the best interests of the Warner shareholders because they would discourage potential takeover attempts. On November 5, 1999, Warner explicitly rejected Pfizer’s proposal in a press release and reaffirmed its commitment to its announced business combination with AHP. On November 9, 1999, de Vink sent a letter to the Pfizer board in which he expressed Warner’s disappointment at what he perceived to be Pfizer’s efforts to take over Warner as well as Pfizer’s lawsuit against the firm. In the letter, he stated Warner-Lambert’s belief that the litigation was not in the best interest of either company’s stockholders, especially in light of their co-promotion of Lipitor, and it was causing uncertainty in the financial markets. Not only did Warner reject the Pfizer bid, but it also threatened to cancel the companies’ partnership to market Lipitor. Pfizer responded by exploiting a weakness in the Warner Lambert takeover defenses by utilizing a consent solicitation process that allows shareholders to change the board without waiting months for a shareholders’ meeting. Pfizer also challenged in court two provisions in the contract with AHP on the grounds that they were not in the best interests of the Warner Lambert shareholders because they would discourage other bidders. Pfizer’s offers for Warner Lambert were contingent on the removal of these provisions. On November 12, 1999, Steere sent a letter to de Vink and the Warner board indicating his deep disappointment as a result of their refusal to consider what Pfizer believes is a superior offer to Warner. He also reiterated his firm’s resolve in completing a merger with Warner. Not hearing anything from Warner management, Pfizer decided to go straight to the Warner shareholders on November 15, 1999, in an attempt to change the composition of the board and to get the board to remove the poison pill and break-up fee. In the mid-November proxy statement sent to Warner shareholders, Pfizer argued that the current Warner Lambert board has approved a merger agreement with American Home, which provides 30% less current value to the Warner-Lambert stockholders than the Pfizer merger proposal. Moreover, Warner shareholders would benefit more in the long run in a merger with Pfizer, because the resulting firm would be operationally and financially stronger than a merger created with AHP. Pfizer also argued that its international marketing strength is superior in the view of most industry analysts to that of American Home and will greatly enhance Warner-Lambert’s foreign sales efforts. Pfizer stated that Warner Lambert was not acting in the best interests of its shareholders by refusing to even grant Pfizer permission to make a proposal. Pfizer also alleged that Warner Lambert is violating its fiduciary responsibilities by approving the merger agreement with American Home in which AHP is entitled to a termination fee of approximately $2 billion. Pressure intensified from all quarters including such major shareholders as the California Public Employees Retirement System and the New York City Retirement Fund. After 3 stormy months, Warner Lambert agreed on February 8, 2000, to be acquired by Pfizer for $92.5 billion, forming the world’s second largest pharmaceutical firm. Although they were able to have the Warner poison pill overturned in court as being an unreasonable defense, Pfizer was unsuccessful in eliminating the break-up fee and had to pay AHP the largest such fee in history. The announced acquisition of Warner Lambert by Pfizer ended one of the most contentious corporate takeover battles in recent memory. -What takeover defenses did Warner employ to ward off the Pfizer merger proposal? What tactics did Pfizer employ to overcome these defenses? Comment on the effectiveness of these defenses.

Pfizer Acquires Warner-Lambert in a Hostile Takeover In 1996 Pfizer and Warner Lambert (Warner) agreed to co-market worldwide the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, which had been developed by Warner. The combined marketing effort was extremely successful with combined 1999 sales reaching $3.5 billion, a 60% increase over 1998. Before entering into the marketing agreement, Pfizer had entered into a confidentiality agreement with Warner that contained a standstill clause that, among other things, prohibited Pfizer from making a merger proposal unless invited to do so by Warner or until a third party made such a proposal. In late 1998, Pfizer became aware of numerous rumors of a possible merger between Warner and some unknown entity. William C. Steere, chair and CEO of Pfizer, sent a letter on October 15, 1999, to Lodeijk de Vink, chair and CEO of Warner, inquiring about the potential for Pfizer to broaden its current strategic relationship to include a merger. More than 2 weeks passed before Steere received a written response in which de Vink expressed concern that Steere’s letter violated the spirit of the standstill agreement by indicating interest in a merger. Speculation about an impending merger between Warner and American Home Products (AHP) came to a head on November 19, 1999, when an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal announcing an impending merger of equals between Warner and AHP valued at $58.3 billion. The public announcement of the agreement to merge between Warner and AHP released Pfizer from the standstill agreement. Tinged with frustration and impatience at what Pfizer saw as stalling tactics, Steere outlined in the letter the primary reasons why the proposed combination of the two companies made sense to Warner’s shareholders. In addition to a substantial premium over Warner’s current share price, Pfizer argued that combining the companies would result in a veritable global powerhouse in the pharmaceutical industry. Furthermore, the firm’s product lines are highly complementary, including Warner’s over-the-counter drug presence and substantial pipeline of new drugs and Pfizer’s powerful global marketing and sales infrastructure. Steere also argued that the combined companies could generate annual cost savings of at least $1.2 billion annually within 1 year following the completion of the merger. These savings would come from centralizing computer systems and research and development (R&D) activities, consolidating more than 100 manufacturing facilities, and combining two headquarters and multiple sales and administrative offices in 30 countries. Pfizer also believed that the two companies’ cultures were highly complementary. In addition to the letter from Steere to de Vink, on November 4, 1999, Pfizer announced that it had commenced a legal action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Warner, Warner’s directors, and AHP. The action sought to enjoin the approximately $2 billion termination fee and the stock option granted by Warner-Lambert to AHP to acquire 14.9% of Warner’s common stock valued at $83.81 per share as part of their merger agreement. The lawsuit charged that the termination fee and stock options were excessively onerous and were not in the best interests of the Warner shareholders because they would discourage potential takeover attempts. On November 5, 1999, Warner explicitly rejected Pfizer’s proposal in a press release and reaffirmed its commitment to its announced business combination with AHP. On November 9, 1999, de Vink sent a letter to the Pfizer board in which he expressed Warner’s disappointment at what he perceived to be Pfizer’s efforts to take over Warner as well as Pfizer’s lawsuit against the firm. In the letter, he stated Warner-Lambert’s belief that the litigation was not in the best interest of either company’s stockholders, especially in light of their co-promotion of Lipitor, and it was causing uncertainty in the financial markets. Not only did Warner reject the Pfizer bid, but it also threatened to cancel the companies’ partnership to market Lipitor. Pfizer responded by exploiting a weakness in the Warner Lambert takeover defenses by utilizing a consent solicitation process that allows shareholders to change the board without waiting months for a shareholders’ meeting. Pfizer also challenged in court two provisions in the contract with AHP on the grounds that they were not in the best interests of the Warner Lambert shareholders because they would discourage other bidders. Pfizer’s offers for Warner Lambert were contingent on the removal of these provisions. On November 12, 1999, Steere sent a letter to de Vink and the Warner board indicating his deep disappointment as a result of their refusal to consider what Pfizer believes is a superior offer to Warner. He also reiterated his firm’s resolve in completing a merger with Warner. Not hearing anything from Warner management, Pfizer decided to go straight to the Warner shareholders on November 15, 1999, in an attempt to change the composition of the board and to get the board to remove the poison pill and break-up fee. In the mid-November proxy statement sent to Warner shareholders, Pfizer argued that the current Warner Lambert board has approved a merger agreement with American Home, which provides 30% less current value to the Warner-Lambert stockholders than the Pfizer merger proposal. Moreover, Warner shareholders would benefit more in the long run in a merger with Pfizer, because the resulting firm would be operationally and financially stronger than a merger created with AHP. Pfizer also argued that its international marketing strength is superior in the view of most industry analysts to that of American Home and will greatly enhance Warner-Lambert’s foreign sales efforts. Pfizer stated that Warner Lambert was not acting in the best interests of its shareholders by refusing to even grant Pfizer permission to make a proposal. Pfizer also alleged that Warner Lambert is violating its fiduciary responsibilities by approving the merger agreement with American Home in which AHP is entitled to a termination fee of approximately $2 billion. Pressure intensified from all quarters including such major shareholders as the California Public Employees Retirement System and the New York City Retirement Fund. After 3 stormy months, Warner Lambert agreed on February 8, 2000, to be acquired by Pfizer for $92.5 billion, forming the world’s second largest pharmaceutical firm. Although they were able to have the Warner poison pill overturned in court as being an unreasonable defense, Pfizer was unsuccessful in eliminating the break-up fee and had to pay AHP the largest such fee in history. The announced acquisition of Warner Lambert by Pfizer ended one of the most contentious corporate takeover battles in recent memory. -What factors may have contributed to Warner Lambert's rejection of the Pfizer proposal?

A bear hug involves mailing a letter containing an acquisition proposal to the target's board without warning and demanding an immediate response.

Alcoa Easily Overwhelms Reynolds’ Takeover Defenses Alcoa reacted quickly to a three-way intercontinental combination of aluminum companies aimed at challenging its dominance of the Western World aluminum market by disclosing an unsolicited takeover bid for Reynolds Metals in early August 1999. The offer consisted of $4.3 billion, or $66.44 a share, plus the assumption of $1.5 billion in Reynolds’ outstanding debt. Reynolds, a perennial marginally profitable competitor in the aluminum industry, appeared to be particularly vulnerable, since other logical suitors or potential white knights such as Canada’s Alcan Aluminum, France’s Pechiney SA, and Switzerland’s Alusuisse Lonza Group AG were already involved in a three-way merger. Alcoa’s letter from its chief executive indicated that it wanted to pursue a friendly deal but suggested that it may pursue a full-blown hostile bid if the two sides could not begin discussions within a week. Reynolds appeared to be highly vulnerable because of its poor financial performance amid falling aluminum prices worldwide and because of its weak takeover defenses. It appeared that a hostile bidder could initiate a mail-in solicitation for shareholder consent at any time. Moreover, major Reynolds’ shareholders began to pressure the board. Its largest single shareholder, Highfields Capital Management, a holder of more than four million shares, demanded that the Board create a special committee of independent directors with its own counsel and instruct Merrill Lynch to open an auction for Reynolds. Despite pressure, the Reynolds’ board rejected Alcoa’s bid as inadequate. Alcoa’s response was to say that it would initiate an all cash tender offer for all of Reynolds’ stock and simultaneously solicit shareholder support through a proxy contest for replacing the Reynolds’ board and dismantling Reynolds’ takeover defenses. Notwithstanding the public posturing by both sides, Reynolds capitulated on August 19, slightly more than two weeks from receipt of the initial solicitation, and agreed to be acquired by Alcoa. The agreement contained a thirty-day window during which Reynolds could entertain other bids. However, if Reynolds should choose to go with another offer, it would have to pay Alcoa a $100 million break-up fee. Under the agreement, which was approved by both boards, each share of Reynolds was exchanged for 1.06 shares of Alcoa stock. When announced, the transaction was worth $4.46 billion and valued each Reynolds share at $70.88, based on an Alcoa closing price of $66.875 on August 19, 1999. The $70.88 price per share of Reynolds suggested a puny 3.9 percent premium to Reynolds’ closing price of $68.25 as of the close of August 19. The combined annual revenues of the two companies totaled $20.5 billion and accounted for about 21.5 percent of the Western World market for aluminum. To receive antitrust approval, the combined companies were required divest selected operations. -What was the dollar value of the purchase price Alcoa offered to pay for Reynolds?

TYCO Rescues AMP from Allied Signal In late November 1998, Tyco International Ltd., a diversified manufacturing and service company, agreed to acquire AMP Inc., an electrical components supplier, for $11.3 billion. In doing so, AMP successfully fended off a protracted takeover attempt by AlliedSignal Inc. As part of the merger agreement with Tyco, AMP rescinded its $165 million share buyback offer and its plan to issue an additional 25 million shares to fund its defense efforts. Tyco, the world’s largest electronics connector company, saw the combination with AMP as a means of becoming the lowest cost producer in the industry. Lawrence Bossidy, CEO of AlliedSignal, telephoned an AMP director in mid-1998 to inquire about AMP’s interest in a possible combination of their two companies. The inquiry was referred to the finance committee of the AMP board, which expressed no interest in merging with AlliedSignal. By early August, AlliedSignal announced its intention to initiate an unsolicited tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of AMP common stock for $44.50 per share to be paid in cash. The following week AlliedSignal initiated such an offer and sent a letter to William J. Hudson, then CEO of AMP, requesting a meeting to discuss a possible business combination. Bossidy also advised AMP of AlliedSignal’s intention to file materials shortly with the SEC as required by federal law to solicit consents from AMP’s shareholders. The consent solicitation materials included proposals to increase the size of AMP’s board from 11 to 28 members and to add 17 AlliedSignal nominees, all of whom were directors or executive officers of AlliedSignal. Within a few days, the AMP board announced its intentions to continue to aggressively pursue its current strategic initiatives, because the AlliedSignal offer did not fully reflect the values inherent in AMP businesses. In addition, the AMP board also replaced Hudson with Robert Ripp as chair and CEO of AMP. The AMP board also authorized an amendment to the AMP rights agreement dated October 25, 1989. The amendment provided that the rights could not be redeemed if there were a change in the composition of the AMP board following the announcement of an unsolicited acquisition proposal such that the current directors no longer comprised a majority of the board. A transaction not approved by AMP’s board and involving the acquisition by a person or entity of 20% or more of AMP’s common stock was defined as an unsolicited acquisition proposal. By early September, AlliedSignal amended its tender offer to reduce the number of shares of AMP common stock it was seeking to purchase to 40 million shares. AlliedSignal also stated that it would undertake another offer to acquire the remaining shares of AMP common stock at a price of $44.50 in cash following consummation of its offer to purchase up to 40 million shares. In concert with its tender offer, AlliedSignal also announced its intention to solicit consents for a proposal to amend AMP’s bylaws. The proposed amendment would strip the AMP board of all authority over the AMP rights agreement and any similar agreements and to vest such authority in three individuals selected by AlliedSignal. In response, the AMP board unanimously determined that the amended offer from AlliedSignal was not in the best interests of AMP shareholders. The AMP board also approved another amendment to the AMP rights agreement, lowering the threshold that would make the rights redeemable from 20% to 10% of AMP’s shares outstanding. AlliedSignal immediately modified its tender offer by reducing the number of shares it wanted to purchase from 40 million to 20 million shares at $44.50 per share. AMP announced a self-tender offer to purchase up to 30 million shares of AMP common stock at $55 per share. The AMP self-tender offer was intended to provide AMP shareholders with an opportunity to sell a portion of their shares of common stock at a price in excess of AlliedSignal’s $44.50 per share offer. Also, on September 28, 1998, AMP stated its intention to create a new ESOP that would hold 25 million shares of AMP common stock. Allied Signal indicated that if the self-tender were consummated, it would reduce the consideration to be paid in any further Allied Signal offers to $42.62 per share . Credit Suisse, AMP’s investment banker, approached a number of firms, including Tyco, concerning their possible interest in acquiring AMP. In early November, Tyco stepped forward as a possible white knight. Based on limited information, L. Dennis Kozlowski, Tyco’s CEO, set the preliminary valuation of AMP at $50.00 per share. This value assumed a transaction in which AMP shares would be exchanged for Tyco shares and was subject to the completion of appropriate due diligence. In mid-November, Ripp and Bossidy met at Bossidy’s request. Bossidy indicated that AlliedSignal would be prepared to increase its proposed acquisition price for AMP by a modest amount and to include stock for a limited portion of the total purchase price. The revised offer also would include a minimum share exchange ratio for the equity portion of the purchase price along with an opportunity for AMP shareholders to participate in any increase in AlliedSignal’s stock before the closing. The purpose of including equity as a portion of the purchase price was to address the needs of certain AMP shareholders, who had a low tax basis in the stock and who wanted a tax-free exchange. Ripp indicated that the AMP board expected a valuation of more than $50.00 per share. Tyco indicated a willingness to increase its offer to at least $51.00 worth of Tyco common shares for each share of AMP common stock. The offer also would include protections similar to those offered in AlliedSignal’s most recent proposal. On November 20, 1998, the AMP board voted unanimously to approve the merger agreement and to recommend approval of the merger to AMP’s shareholders. They also voted to terminate the AMP self-tender offer, the ESOP, and AMP’s share repurchase plan and to amend the AMP rights agreement so that it would not apply to the merger with Tyco. In early August, AlliedSignal filed a complaint against AMP in the United States District Court against the provisions of the AMP rights agreement. The complaint also questioned the constitutionality of certain anti-takeover provisions of Pennsylvania state statutes. Concurrently, AMP shareholders filed four shareholder class-action lawsuits against AMP and its board of directors. The suits alleged that AMP and its directors improperly refused to consider the original AlliedSignal offer and wrongfully relied on the provisions of the AMP rights agreement and Pennsylvania law to block the original AlliedSignal offer. In late August, AMP filed a complaint in the United States District court against AlliedSignal, seeking an injunction to prevent AlliedSignal from attempting to pack the AMP board of directors with AlliedSignal executive officers and directors. The complaint also alleged that the Schedule 14D-1 SEC filing by Allied-Signal was false and misleading. The complaint alleged that the filing failed to disclose that some of AlliedSignal’s proposed directors had conflicts of interest and that the packing of the board would prevent current board members from executing their fiduciary responsibilities to AMP shareholders. In early October, the court agreed with AMP and enjoined AlliedSignal’s board-packing consent proposals until it stated unequivocally that its director nominees have a fiduciary duty solely to AMP under Pennsylvania law. The court also denied AlliedSignal’s request to deactivate anti-takeover provisions in the AMP rights agreement. The court further held that shareholders might not sue the board for rejecting the AlliedSignal proposal. AlliedSignal immediately filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court ordered that although AlliedSignal could proceed with the consent solicitation, its representatives could not assume positions on the AMP board until the court of appeals completed its deliberations. The district court ruled that the shares of AMP common stock acquired by AlliedSignal are “control shares” under Pennsylvania law. As a result, the court enjoined AlliedSignal from voting its AMP shares unless AlliedSignal’s voting rights are restored under Pennsylvania law. AlliedSignal was able to overturn the lower court ruling on appeal. -How did both AMP and AlliedSignal use litigation in this takeover battle?

Stakeholders in a firm refer to shareholders only.