So I linked in my last post to the Wikipedia page on mergers and acquisitions, mostly just to clarify what M&As were.

But I ended up perusing the subject a bit, and it gets downright crazy. There’s a whole bunch of hostile takeovers. (Basically, where the board of a company doesn’t agree to be bought out by another company.) And there’s a whole section, Tactics against hostile takeover, which is an amusing read just for the names. A lot of them are downright crazy: the Scorched-earth defense has a company basically destroying its most valuable assets so that it’s less attractive for a takeover. (I’ve been looking for a reason to use the phrase, “Cutting off your nose to spite your face” lately. This is it.)

But the article, Nancy Reagan Defense began the best part. The Defense is to “just say no,” but this is where it gets crazier. They first cite the example of Comcast trying to take over Walt Disney (is this for real?!), and then quote an analyst who mentioned that and another defense: the Pac-Man defense.

The Pac-Man defense is maybe my favorite. When a company is attempting a hostile takeover of your company, your company tries starts buying up shares of that company, to keep them from taking you over. (So you’re basically doing a hostile takeover of the people trying to do a hostile takeover on you.)

My head hurts. I’m going to bed.