In my studies I learned about a bid war ending in a hostile takeover where the winner ended up paying less than the loser offered. It is a very nice demonstration of elements of game theory so I would like to reread that again and to recommend it to a friend.
Unfortunately, I cannot find it in the internet regardless of what search terms I try. I will state the details I remember. I would be very glad if the answer could tell which companies were included so I can research the interesting details.
Here we go:
- Two companies, A and B, competed about to acquire a third one.
- The bid war happened at least 10 years ago, maybe more.
- The bid war ended in a hostile takeover.
- Company A offered a fixed amount. I am not sure, but that offer might have been valid only if enough shareholders accepted it.
- Company B offered a higher amount regardless of enough shareholders accepting it. However, if a certain number of shares were reached, the offered price was reduced linearly.
- B's offer was dominating A's offer. B won the hostile takeover.
- In the end, shareholders received less for their shares than what A offered initially. (This is the crazy thing about this bid war).
I was unable to translate that list in sufficient search terms. Does it ring a bell for someone?