NRG, Exelon on bridge to nowhere

July 8, 2009

bridge2‘Tis the season for unbridgeable gaps.

NRG Energy rejected Exelon’s sweetened (and hostile) bid on Wednesday, saying the $6.9 billion offer was still too low.   

Exelon raised its all-stock offer for NRG by more than 12 percent last week, but investors have not been swayed by the increased price. NRG shares have lost more than 15 percent of their value since Exelon bumped up its bid.   

Exelon has said its increased bid of 0.545 of its shares for every NRG share is its best and final offer. 
Still, NRG called the revised Exelon bid a step in the right direction.  “If you would properly recognize the value created by NRG itself, you would be able to increase your current 0.545 offer by a substantial amount,” NRG wrote in its letter.   

Next stop on this long road: NRG’s annual meeting on July 21. Exelon has nominated a slate of directors to stand for election; shareholders will vote.

The two companies are part of a long list of running hostiles, including Broadcom/Emulex, Agirum/CF/Terra, Xstrata/Anglo American, Validus/IPC and EMC/Data Domain. Some of those offers are “unsolicited” and not “hostile” yet. But let’s face it — a bid that is unsolicited and perceived to be undervalued might not be “hostile,” but it isn’t considered particularly friendly.

Expect more unfriendly approaches as depressed stock prices and lack of long-term visibility continue to create wide - and often unbridegable – gaps between buyers and sellers.

One comment so far | RSS Comments RSS

In my opinion hostile take overs run a much higher failure risk and should be avoided when possible. In many cases there will always remain a festering hostility between the different factions involved in the deal.


Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see