When a company makes an offer forcing another in the midst of merging with a third entity to reassess their proposed deal, what typically are the real underlying reasons for such offers? Sometimes what is not stated openly may be more than meets the eye. Consider the following two (2) examples:
- When the Reinsurer’s division of a certain Mogul made a $52/share offer for Transatlantic Holdings inc. to the tune of $3.25 billion, this led Transatlantic to state that this offer was likely to lead to a “superior proposal” to its merger agreement with the third Company as reported in a popular Daily/Weekend Business publication from August 5, 2011 (C3). Since Transatlantic had already agreed to a merger with Allied World Assurance co. this offer led to a sell off of that Company’s stock thereby decreasing the value of its offer by 1.4% to $2.72 billion, and the value of a rival’s (Validus Holdings Ltd) third hostile bidder’s offer to $2.79 billion as that Company’s stock dropped by 4.7%. This course of action appears to be aimed at forcing Allied World to commit to a more expensive merger offer, weakening this Company in order to force them into a position needed to obtain the “superior (quid pro quo) proposal”. Could it be that some form of identity switching/ mangling activity was the real aim of weakening Allied World into accepting some “behind-the-scenes” type “credibility” activity for some Transatlantic “Society’s” type fraud with the $52/share offer?
- Similarly when MidAmerican Energy holdings caused WPL to increase it merger offer for the then IES Industries with its (“prearranged” - see the below photo of a composite) hostile bid, was this action by this entity (now part of this Mogul’s Conglomerate) aimed at placing WPL into a weakened position to force them into acceptance of an impostor/con artist needing an identity from an individual hired for the purpose of identity transfer via quid pro quo deal-making (see the post ADDENDUM TO AN EXAMPLE OF HIRING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ID TRANSFER - UPDATED)? As it turned out, this Window-Dresser CEO showed that he also was “Society’s” type material and could be brought in exchange for a “price.” He was later rewarded handsomely for his (quid pro quo) part in this “multi-layered” merger (see the posts EXPLANATION OF A DISASTER-PRONE WINDOW-DRESSING PERSON) and HOW TO IMPLEMENT IDENTITY THEFT AND LEGITIMIZE FRAUD - UPDATED.