RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Much higher
"""In past cases where management was in favour of an arranged takeover, there was a voting requirement for a majority of shares not controlled by management to also be in favour of the arrangement. I see no difference why this should not be the case where management comes down against a hostile bid.""
Imagine management owning, say, 50%. Would it make sense for a hostile takeover to
only need a majority of the other 50%?