Would anyone care to comment on the removal of this form of defense against the company being taken over? Several questions arise. Doesn't this leave the employees without a means to fend off a takeover offer by another company? What are the implications of the company taking this defense away? Does management feel there is no longer a risk of a hostile takeover? Or is management interested in inviting a takeover? What is the benefit of not having the poison pill defense in place? I admit that this action makes me suspicious. I have noted that big pharma have recently expressed interest in acquiring medical device firms. Can any dots be connected here? Is it a coincidence that the poison pill removal comes just after the news of the Sanofi license deal? How about the recent news from Merck that they would like to acquire medical device firms? As an investor, I have learned not believe in coincidenses. I have learned believe in the motive of the bottom line.
I think there is a "French connection" in BDX. The Sanofi vaccine delivery deal may be a prelude to greater things. Merck is an obvious candidate as a suitor, as I have mentioned before. It looks like the Sanofi license news was the catalyst needed to get the stock over $60. I think it may retest $60, but will probably stay above, making $60 a new support level. Litigation issue don't bother me. We would have heard by now if there was anything big. Stay tuned.