Not something that I could do, or even admire, but capitalism is much about failure as it is about success.
If some system (company, branch, industry niche, product line - in different scales) in the economy is weak and inefficient, then simply allowing it to operate as-is will be a constant drain on the society, and artificially supporting/subsidizing it will hurt the people/companies who are either doing the same thing better, or doing some different, better thing.
On the other hand, ripping an inefficient company apart as the 'sharks' do - that is a way to reallocate all those resources (subsidiaries, employees, capital, buildings) to other places that will make a better use of them. The whole reason why large companies exist is because it's a way to get 2+2=5, so to speak. If some company achieves 2+2=3, then tearing it apart to get two 2's out of it is a valuable service for the financial ecosystem.
Lack of such 'sharks' increases short-term stability, but at the cost of having a lot of resources tied up in inefficient places; this is considered one of major factors why planned/command economies tend to fall behind to market economies - simply because they tend to leave uncompetitive businesses alone instead of agressively dismantling them.
Contrast this with 'zombie companies' in Japan, 'zombie banks' like Deutsche Bank, and so forth that are kept animated by gov/taxpayer money instead of fed to the sharks.
[Reminds me of Liars Poker and bonds...]
It's all to do with focus and Woolworth's core business is not consumer electronics. It's supermarkets. And their core business is being decimated by their competitors (Coles/Aldi) and they are at real risk of not having a long term future if they don't focus.
I am in the supermarket business so I know exactly how serious their situation is.
Of course, the PE company comes across as sharks - but all PE companies are sharks - that's what they do!