BOARD CERTIFICATION EXAM STUDY GUIDES Lower Extremity Trauma
[Click on Image to Enlarge]
ME-P Free Advertising Consultation
The “Medical Executive-Post” is about connecting doctors, health care executives and modern consulting advisors. It’s about free-enterprise, business, practice, policy, personal financial planning and wealth building capitalism. We have an attitude that’s independent, outspoken, intelligent and so Next-Gen; often edgy, usually controversial. And, our consultants “got fly”, just like U. Read it! Write it! Post it! “Medical Executive-Post”. Call or email us for your FREE advertising and sales consultation TODAY [678.779.8597] Email: MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com
Medical & Surgical e-Consent Forms
ePodiatryConsentForms.com
iMBA Inc., OFFICES
Suite #5901 Wilbanks Drive, Norcross, Georgia, 30092 USA [1.678.779.8597]. Our location is real and we are now virtually enabled to assist new long distance clients and out-of-town colleagues.
ME-P Publishing
SEEKING INDUSTRY INFO PARTNERS?
If you want the opportunity to work with leading health care industry insiders, innovators and watchers, the “ME-P” may be right for you? We are unbiased and operate at the nexus of theoretical and applied R&D. Collaborate with us and you’ll put your brand in front of a smart & tightly focused demographic; one at the forefront of our emerging healthcare free marketplace of informed and professional “movers and shakers.” Our Ad Rate Card is available upon request [678-779-8597].
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Posted on September 16, 2023 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™
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.