Examlex
Oracle Attempts to Takeover PeopleSoft
PeopleSoft, a maker of human resource and database software, announced on February 9, 2004 that an increased bid by Oracle, a maker of database software, of $26 per share made directly to the shareholders was inadequate. PeopleSoft’s board and management rejected the bid even though it represented a 33% increase over Oracle’s previous offer of $19.50 per share. The PeopleSoft board urged its shareholders to reject the bid in a mailing of its own to its shareholders. If successful, the takeover would be valued at $9.4 billion. After an initial jump to $23.72 a share, PeopleSoft shares had eased to $22.70 a share, well below Oracle’s sweetened offer.
The rejection prolonged a highly contentious and public eight-month takeover battle that has pitted the two firms against each other. PeopleSoft was quick to rebuke publicly Oracle’s original written offer made behind the scenes to PeopleSoft’s management that included a requirement that PeopleSoft respond immediately. At about the same time, Oracle filed its intentions with respect to PeopleSoft with the SEC when its ownership of PeopleSoft stock rose above 5%. Since then, Oracle proposed replacing five of PeopleSoft’s board members with its own nominees at the PeopleSoft annual meeting to be held on March 25, 2004, in addition to increasing the offer price. This meeting was held about two months earlier than its normally scheduled annual meetings. By moving up the schedule for the meeting, investors had less time to buy PeopleSoft shares in order to be able to vote at the meeting, where the two companies will present rival slates for the PeopleSoft board. Oracle seeks to gain a majority on the PeopleSoft board in order to lift the company’s unique “customer assurance” anti-takeover defense. PeopleSoft advised its shareholders to vote no on the slate of potential board members proposed by Oracle. PeopleSoft also announced that it would buyback another $200 million of its shares, following the $350 million buyback program completed last year.
Oracle has said that it will take $9.8 billion (including transaction fees) to complete the deal. The cost of acquiring PeopleSoft could escalate under PeopleSoft’s unusual customer assurance program in which its customers have been offered money-back guarantees if an acquirer reduces its support of PeopleSoft products. Oracle repeated its intention to continue support for PeopleSoft customers and products. The potential liability under the program increased to $1.55 billion. In addition, Oracle will have to pay PeopleSoft’s CEO Craig Conway a substantial multiple of his current annual salary if he loses his job after a takeover. This could cost Oracle an additional $25 to $30 million. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing the proposed acquisition of PeopleSoft by Oracle and has expressed concern that it will leave to reduced competition in the software industry
-Identify at least one takeover defense or tactic that is in place or is being employed by PeopleSoft. Explain how this defense or tactic is intended to discourage Oracle in its takeover effort.
Initiative
The ability to assess and initiate things independently, often seen as a leadership quality.
Language Comprehension
The ability to understand spoken, written, or signed language.
Temporal Lobes
Regions of the cerebral cortex located beneath the temples, involved in processing auditory information and encoding memory.
Somatosensory Cortex
A region of the brain located in the parietal lobe, responsible for processing sensory information from the body, such as touch, temperature, and pain.
Q4: Closing is included in which of the
Q5: Shrewd sellers often negotiate a break-up clause
Q15: The actual price paid by the buyer
Q17: Anheuser-Busch reduced its anti-takeover defenses in 2006
Q24: Speculate as to how Actavis's takeover of
Q62: All of the following are common takeover
Q63: How might the proliferation of Internet usage
Q87: How does Chapter 11 bankruptcy protect Lehman's
Q116: An equity carve-out by a parent of
Q121: One justification for the merger was the