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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
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
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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383346