Is the severance package communicated over the break enforcenable when the change in control occurs via a hostile takeover?
9 replies (most recent on top)
2gxl, you are an idiot. Hostile takeovers are exceedingly rare these days because of these poison pill strategies.
Qualcomm Inc. is incorporated in Deleware. The Deleware supreme court upheld the validity of the poison pill defense. Here is just one example />
TMVHB for everything.
GL2U & GBU.
, good argument. Yet there must be some value in this poison pill. Can a terminated employee sue for the promised severance?
It is definitely not legally binding. Otherwise, hostile takeovers would never happen, as companies could introduce contractual poison pills to prevent anyone from ever staging a takeover. „In the event of a change in control, the employee is entitled to a $1 million bonus and a two year sabbatical.“ You think that would actually work?
All of this is just a placebo. After the acquisition, Tan can do whatever the Hock he wants.
Change in control of my happens when the deal closes. That's a year away...
Exactly.. is it a legally binding clause or just a way for QC management to keep people from quitting?
It doesn‘t matter if it‘s a hostile takeover or not. The main issue is that it is not legally binding.
Triggering event is CIC, right? So it shouldn't matter how the CIC was accomplished. Of course, there's always the fine print...
Did you not read it ???????? It clearly states that it is.