Barnes & Noble Sidesteps Hostile Takeover Bid…Again!

Barnes & Noble has been fighting a hostile takeover bid mounted by Ron Burkle back around the end of 2009. I posted on this intrigue and it’s background twice before (Fight Still on to Control Barnes & Noble and Barnes & Noble’s Fight for Control Moves to Round Two).

Well, the poison pill defense (more details below) put forth by B&N to prevent the takeover was successful in the Delaware lower courts…Mr. Burkle then appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court…and this court has just come down on the side of B&N, also…

Poof! Looks like goodbye to the hostile takeover. I wonder if Ron Burkle has any options left to gain control of our largest ‘brick-and-mortar’ bookseller? 

Besides wanting to post on this seemingly final decision RE this matter, I also wanted to explain a bit of just what a “poison pill” defense is.  

This from Publishers Weekly:

Court Rejects Burkle Appeal 

The Delaware Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Ron Burkle in a lawsuit challenging a poison pill plan adopted by Barnes & Noble. Burkle filed the original suit this summer after B&N instituted the poison pill provision in response to Burkle significantly increasing his stake in the retailer. A judge last year upheld the provision, prompting Burkle’s appeal.

 

The court did not take long to rule for B&N in the appeal. After hearing arguments Wednesday, on Thursday the court affirmed the judge’s original decision. Friday morning there was no word on whether Burkle will continue to press the issue.

 

Read and learn more

 

Kindle owners, get this blog on your Kindle here