In a franchise generally Either party is free to terminate the agreement at will

Question

In a franchise generally Either party is free to terminate the agreement at will You can terminate at will only if you can show that there is no profit in the business None of the above Same situation as in last question except this time Natalie and Nick have a partnership agreement that says profits shall be split 80% to Nick and 20% to Natalie. With respect to the $1000 Loss how much is Nick and Natalie responsible for. Nick $500, Natalie $500 Nick $800, Natalie $200 Nick $0, Natalie $1000 Nick $300, Natalie $700 In the video clip we watched in class from the film, Secret of my Success, CEO: Penrose at Board meeting with Davenport Enterprises: I see nothing to stand in the way of the immediate merger of our two companies Premrose and Davenport Enterprises. Gotta tell you, Don (CEO of Davenport). At first, the idea of this merger made me as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. But then I realized I was wrong. The combination of our products and your distribution capabilities could vault Pemrose right to the top of the market. The problem is management, Things were bad enough when Howard was running the company. Now we got you to deal with too. You see, Brantley made arrangements this morning to buy five percent of the stock in your company, Davenport Enterprises. We're buying you out. We've initiated a hostile takeover of Davenport Enterprises in a proxy fight for the Pemrose Corporation. The merger defense strategy that was employed at the end of the film is best characterized as:

Explanation / Answer

Ans 17- (A)Either party is free to terminate the contract

provided:

parties should provide there intend with a reasonable justification.

A sufficient reasonable notice that shows the party is going to terminate the contract.

Trying to find out the remedy to breach.

18()Nick 800, Natalie 200.

With respect to what is present in the question, the loss will be divided as per the profite percentage share given in the question. that is 80% for Nick and 20% for Natalie.

19; If we analyse the various defence strategy to hostlie takeover.

Green Mail Merger- The money paid by the target company to the one who hase purchase a big number of the shares.

White Knight- here the traget compnay not being independent, a white knight is a good option for complete the hostile takeover.

Here in the present scenario-

where the CEO of davenpront thinks that it is good enough to go for the merge as the mix and match of ones product and another;s distribution capabilities will duct a proper and beneficial merger.

Also the Brantley made apurchase of 5% in the Dvenport;s share which means they are trying to defend the hostile takeover by Premose.To go ahead with the merger Premose have to deal with the Brantley's share.

Where the CEO is not having problem in delaing with the merger then there will be no issue in proceeding of the merger as it shows the correct vision of the merger. They are accepting the offer tfor the good which will further benefit both the parties.

So we can make out that this is White Knight Merger where the traget is not the independent . The management will be not there which will also help the target to go ahead with new active minds which in past was not practically handled by the management.

So the strategy used is White Knight.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.