lled it a "feeding frenzy," and last week, as the biggest takeover battle in American corporate history gained momentum, the description seemed right on the mark. Three giant companies - Du-Pont, Seagram and Mobil - were battling for control of Conoco, Inc., the nation's ninth largest oil concern, and the bidding was fast approaching the $6 billion level. Meanwhile, other cash-rich corporate giants were eying their own acquisition targets and frightened companies scrambled to protect themselves. By the end of the week, the hunters and their prey had stocked up war chests of bank credits worth more than $25 billion-enough to buy Detroit's Big Three automakers with $10 billion to spare-and many analysts predicted that the marauders were preparing for a long--term merger binge of unprecedented proportions. "Having had that first taste of blood," said Larry Goldstein, chief economist for the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, "it is hard to believe they will pull back." To take this sort of writing seriously is to believe that firms are rabid bears preying on defenseless Bambis in a gentle forest, or Attila the Hun pillaging a placid hamlet. If language was ever used to obfuscate and mislead, here it is. Merger by ConsentContrary to popular impression, a merger does not occur by one firm eating another against its will. Mergers occur when a firm buys a sufficient portion of another firm's stock to enable the first firm to determine the second's management and policies. The key word is "buys." Before a company can buy stock, the owners of the stock must be willing to sell; only the state and muggers think they may acquire property without the owner's consent. To complain about mergers, then, is to complain about the stockholders' freedom to sell their property as they like. But what about "hostile takeovers"? This misleading term describes mergers in which the management (or some stockholders) don't want a controlling share to be acquir...
