學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
Cross-Border Acquisition: Mittal's Fight for Arcelor
內容大綱
The European Union rarely saw hostile corporate takeovers. The structure of corporate ownership and governance across most of Western Europe made gaining control - without the cooperation of the target firm - exceedingly difficult. Despite the challenge, Mittal Steel, the world's largest steel producer, was determined to acquire Arcelor, the world's second largest steel maker. The very public hostile acquisition of Arcelor by Mittal Steel in 2006 was a study in the complexity of crossborder acquisitions. The fight-and it may be best described as a fight-involved Arcelor, a Luxembourg-based multinational steel company, deploying nearly every known defense mechanism to stave off Mittal Steel's hostile acquisition. Legal, societal, political, strategic, national, and even possibly ethnic differences and issues were deployed. In the end, despite larger-than-life personalities and the differences in corporate takeover law across countries, the outcome was driven by shareholder rights and returns.