In the complex world of corporate mergers and acquisitions, they rarely start off smoothly or are resolved with everyone smiling. The terms ‘friendly’ and ‘hostile’ are simplified notions for a very complicated series of maneuvers, and equanimity is a difficult practice for any of the parties involved. But when there are foreign companies trying to acquire big local brands, it’s time to let the jingoism fly, as it often gets personal. The larger the companies on the metaphorical chessboard, the more likely protests will be heard beyond the confines of the boardroom.

A recent example is Kraft’s purchase of England’s confectionery giant, Cadbury’s; Boy, did the British press have a field day stoking public outrage over the loss of such a hallowed brand, now ‘plundered’ by the oh-so-rude American purveyors of Cheez Whiz. Shock, horror, generous doses of snobbery, and also fear from the hundreds of employees who were left wondering what their new masters would do with them. And the same goes for neoliberalism and the free market: Darwinism rules and the weakest companies must succumb, like the proverbial wounded fawn before the inevitable predatory victor. The tangled politics of corporate ‘land grabs’ is always up for debate, and when governments step into the gap, things can get messy.

When two brands come together, many new issues arise even before the ink is dry, including inter-management issues, project and staff layoffs, and the serious questions of how to rebrand the company. new entity that has essentially become a new organism. Add to all this the public relations aspects of handling those whose fingers will inevitably get burned and you have the feeling that this is a business move not for the faint-hearted or feeble-minded. And yet they happen all the time with automakers, pharmaceutical companies, telecommunications, and the oil industry.

There are still some very big and very famous M&A cases being talked about, which have acquired a kind of mythical status. The two largest were in the last decade and involved the media and telecommunications industries: the AOL Time Warner merger and the Vodafone-Mannesmann acquisition in 2002, the latter being the largest in history and perhaps the most controversial. So contentious, in fact, that British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder weighed in publicly at the time on what was fast becoming a heated and difficult situation. You have to be very careful with terminology: in the press, merger means friendly, and the takeover inevitably carries a hostile label, whether that’s the reality or not; and what is said publicly may certainly not be the case behind closed doors.

UK-based Vodafone partnered with German Mannesmann at the time, when the latter bought Orange, then the third largest network in the UK (with Vodafone being the first). They made this bold move without any prior notice or consent from their partner, Vodafone. And once Orange became owned by Mannesmann, they were in direct competition for services on British soil, a rather unpleasant corporate position and one that forced Vodafone to retaliate. And they say they did.

Vodafone averted what could have been the beginning of its demise in this rapidly changing market with a direct, unsolicited offer to Mannesmann shareholders. In situations like this, it took leadership skill, a keen ability to see the long game, and a dash of good old-fashioned street smarts not only to make the acquisition a reality, but also to handle the negative press the Germans were instigating. . Vodafone Chief Executive Christopher Gent and Scott Mead of Goldman Sachs, who was then the chief adviser on the deal, proved very adept. Mead was an experienced strategist who was able to put the necessary components in place and direct the advisory team to take action, and to do so with poise and speed; the result of which would ultimately lead to the record acquisition of 200,000 million dollars. But first, Vodafone had to quickly regain composure from the initial shock of Mannesmann’s move and come up with an urgent response.

That response came in the form of an initial offer to buy Mannesmann. This was quickly pushed back, with scathing statements issued by its board of directors and the unions. Mannesmann supervisory board deputy chairman Klaus Zwickel was reported to have described the action as “brutal behaviour” and an example of “predatory capitalism, (which) aims only at short-term gains for shareholders”. Likewise, Schroder publicly said that a hostile takeover would “damage the corporate culture.”

Of course, the mud sling could not only have come from the German side. Hell hath no fury as much as nationalistic pride, and the British also had to kick the bucket metaphorically. And truth be told, they had every right. The British press called the Germans “nationalists” and “hypocrites”, and Blair stated flatly in an interview: “Today we live in a European market where European companies are taking over other European companies, European companies are taking over British and vice versa. poured”. This was certainly the case with Mannesmann’s recent acquisition of Orange, somehow strangely forgotten amidst his storm of vitriol.

To be fair, not all of Mannesmann’s leaders saw Vodafone’s departure as a threat to national interests. The company’s group president, Klaus Esser, saw the situation for what it was: a set of economic decisions that are an intrinsic part of the business landscape. Add to this the supreme irony that the hysteria on the German side about losing their ‘domestic business’ was made doubly ridiculous by the fact that 60% of Mannesmann’s shareholders were foreigners anyway.

Vodafone, in the end, was able to make an offer that could not be refused and thus became the new owner of Mannesmann. The case is interesting because it highlights the complex relationships involved with multinational societies, and with perhaps different economic paradigms: the Germans practice what they believed to be a more ‘social economic’ program, which is actually also debatable. However, this acquisition is significant due to the inherent drama of the case, the political dispute, and the balletic ability of some of its key players to quickly and effectively resolve a very sensitive and urgent situation. Reasons that continue to make this one of the most talked about and well-known acquisitions in business history.