Skip to main content
Log in

In defense of sharks moral issues in hostile liquidating takeovers

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this essay we defend the view that from a purely rule-utilitarian perspective there is no sound argument favoring the immorality of hostile liquidating buyouts. All arguments favoring such a view are seriously flawed. Moreover, there are some good argument favoring the view that such buyouts may be morally obligatory from the rule-utilitarian perspective. We also defend the view that most of the “shark repellents” in the market are immoral. If we are right in our arguments there is no justification, moral or otherwise, for any form of legislation that would constrain the practice of hostile liquidating buyouts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Robert Almeder earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, is co-editor of Business Ethics (Prometheus Press, 1987), is on the Editorial Board of Journal of Business Ethics, and teaches at Georgia State University.

David Carey earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Pittsburg. He has written extensively on Business Ethics and is currently teaching philosophy at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Almeder, R., Carey, D. In defense of sharks moral issues in hostile liquidating takeovers. J Bus Ethics 10, 471–484 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383346

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383346

Keywords

Navigation