INTEL: The USA and Softbank’s Acquistion?

By A.I. and Staff Reporters

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

***

US government mulls 10% stake in Intel as Softbank invests $2b.

According to Morning Brew, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal reported recently that the government is considering becoming one of the beleaguered chipmaker’s biggest shareholders by converting grants the company was given under the Biden-era Chips Act into an equity stake.

At Intel’s current valuation, a 10% stake would be worth ~$10.5 billion—though the exact size of the stake and whether the government will move forward with the plan remains to be determined.

Meanwhile, over in the private sector, Softbank agreed to buy $2 billion worth of Intel stock, giving it a ~2% stake. Intel has been trying to turn itself around after losing ground to other semiconductor companies

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

Like and Subscribe

***

***

PHYSICIANS: Beware “Zombie” Debt and “Phantom” Debt Collectors

By Staff Reporters

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

***

According to Wikipedia, Phantom debt or zombie debt is a debt that is old, defaulted, or not owed and is somehow still being pursued for collection to be paid by the presumed debtor. It generally refers to debt that is more than 3 years old, is long forgotten about or belonged to someone else – like someone with the same name or a deceased parent. The amount owed can grow to hundreds or thousands of dollars more than what was originally owed.

BROKE DOCTORS: https://medicalexecutivepost.com/2025/08/02/doctors-going-broke-and-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/

An example of this is from George Miller. George missed an 11 cent Verizon bill and seven years later it had grown to $4,000.00.

Sometimes it was never owed, was owed by a deceased parent, or that was previously owed by the presumed debtor, but was previously paid in full, settled, discharged via bankruptcy or a dismissed court case, is beyond the statute of limitations, or is otherwise not legally collectible, but that a collection agency or other similar service is aggressively attempting to collect, often fraudulently.

***

***

While the concept of phantom debt is quite old, it has gotten a lot of attention since the 1990s.

Very often, collectors of phantom debt use intimidating, abusive, or otherwise illegal tactics in an attempt to collect phantom debt that include frequent phone calls, calls to the victim’s place of employment, or threats of scary consequences against the victim that sometimes include arrest and/or criminal prosecution. In the USA, such tactics violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [FDCPA]

The source of phantom debt may be from collectors who buy the debt from other collectors for pennies on the dollar, some of which take action that is not legal in order to collect that debt. Unlawful techniques used include suing or threatening to sue, re-aging the debt on the victim’s credit report to circumvent limits on reporting, or falsely promising to remove a negative credit report entry in exchange for a partial payment.

PSYCHOLOGY MONEY: https://medicalexecutivepost.com/2025/04/08/psychology-a-money-relationship-questionnaire-for-doctors/

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like and Subscribe

***

***

HOSTILE COMPANY TAKEOVER: Definition, Defense & Pharmaceutical Company Example

By Staff Reporters

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

SPONSOR: http://www.HealthDictionarySeries.org

**

A hostile takeover happens when an entity takes control of a company without the knowledge and against the wishes of the company’s management. A hostile takeover is an acquisition strategy requiring that the entity acquire and control more than 50% of the voting shares issued by the company.

In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), a hostile takeover is the acquisition of a target company by an acquiring company that goes directly to the target company’s shareholders, either by making a tender offer or through a proxy vote.

Ideally, an entity interested in acquiring a company should seek approval from the target company’s Board of Directors. The difference between a hostile and a friendly takeover is that, in a friendly takeover, the target company’s board of directors approve of the transaction and recommend shareholders vote in favor of the deal.

Defenses against a hostile takeover

These defense mechanisms can be preemptive or reactive, depending on how prepared the company is for the possibility of a hostile bid.

Poison pill is one of the most common defenses against a hostile takeover. Officially known as a “shareholder rights plan,” the poison pill allows existing shareholders to purchase additional shares at a discount, diluting the ownership interest of the acquiring company. The goal is to make it prohibitively expensive for the acquirer to complete the takeover.

A golden parachute is another defense strategy, which involves providing lucrative compensation packages (bonuses, severance pay, stock options, etc.) to key executives in the event they are terminated as a result of the takeover. This creates a financial disincentive for the acquiring company, as it would need to pay out these large sums upon completing the takeover.

In a Crown jewel defense, the target company sells or threatens to sell its most valuable assets—its “crown jewels”—if the takeover is completed. This reduces the attractiveness of the company to the acquirer, as the most desirable assets would no longer be part of the deal.

The Pac-Man defenses a more aggressive strategy in which the target company turns the tables by attempting to buy shares of the acquiring company, effectively launching a counter-takeover. While rare, this defense can deter hostile bids by making the takeover battle more costly and complex.

A White-Knight defense involves the target company seeking out a more favorable acquirer, or “white knight,” to make a friendly takeover bid. This allows the target company to avoid the hostile acquirer while still securing the benefits of a merger or acquisition.

EXAMPLE: Sanofi-Aventis and Genzyme Corp. Year: 2011 Deal value: $20.1 billion Industry: Pharmaceutical

The hostile takeover between Sanofi-Aventis and Genzyme Corp. occurred in 2010 when Sanofi, a French pharmaceutical company, wanted to buy Genzyme, a US biotech firm specializing in rare diseases. Genzyme resisted the offer, leading to conflict. Sanofi started a public campaign to pressure Genzyme’s shareholders into selling.

After months of negotiations, the two companies reached a deal in 2011. Sanofi agreed to pay $74 per share, with additional payments tied to Genzyme’s future performance, bringing the total deal value to around $20.1 billion. This acquisition allowed Sanofi to expand into the lucrative market for rare disease treatment.

MORE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hostile_takeover

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Refer and Subscribe

***

***

US Health Administration Spending

CIRCA 2017 – Per Capita

[By staff reporters]

***

***

Product DetailsProduct Details

***

U.S.A. DOJ versus GOOGLE LLC

By Staff Reporters

One week into the 10-week trial in the U.S.A’s government’s high-stakes antitrust case against Google as the two sides have already staked out their positions.

The DOJ claims that Google spends billions per year to maintain its monopoly over search, paying to be the default on web browsers and mobile devices. Google, meanwhile, asserts that its dominant position comes from being better than all its competitors.

“If Google is prevented from competing, that won’t make Yahoo or DuckDuckGo run faster,” the company’s lawyer reportedly said in court.

DOJ: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-google-llc

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Thank You

***

***