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.
No comments:
Post a Comment