Talk:Greenmail

reasons
Why would a company not want to be taken over, and submit to greenmail?

a better definition
The definition in the article, "Greenmail or greenmailing is a corporate acquisition strategy for generating large amounts of money from the attempted hostile takeovers of large, often undervalued or inefficient companies.", is very confusing. This one is much better: "Greenmail or greenmailing is the practice of purchasing enough shares in a firm to threaten a takeover and thereby forcing the target firm to buy those shares back at a premium in order to suspend the takeover." Jackzhp 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

new definition and POV problems
I wrote a new definition that describes more exactly what greenmail is. The old definition did not really describe what it is.

Also, the whole article as it is currently written is incredibly biased from the management/populist point of view and should really be rewritten by someone with expertise in the area and a neutral point of view. John Chamberlain (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

prevention
I thought that the "all holders, best price" rule was the main reason why greenmail no longer exists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.32.87 (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

this article is terrible, bordering on unreadable 69.155.228.46 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

redo of lede section
I made some changes to the opening of the article. I tried to rewrite the definition in the opening sentence to be easy to understand. Added a more robust summary of the article body. cheers Hannahthom7 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)