Contracts are only binding up to a certain amount of capital. You can only make the violator bleed so much.... i don't see contracts as threats to any of these large corporations.

That's trivial to get around. X can dump liabilities into the company, and Y would never reacquire it.

And that is trivial to get around, instead of a $1 clawback for the company, a $1 clawback for all acquired IP, trademarks, etc including any related developed under the same or derivative marks and companies.

That's closer to what I've done, but in practice that also lowers the value of the company. There is a sweet spot you have to hit of giving up control. Just because you ask for something doesn't mean you will get it. In fact, you normally don't have the advantage in these types of sales, so you don't get to specify these things.

> In fact, you normally don't have the advantage in these types of sales, so you don't get to specify these things.

You could always so no and just continue running your company?

Even if you really do want to get out, you can probably get in some conditions if you are willing to reduce the price.

That's what I would assume at least

The issue is that the transaction and the outlooks are asymmetric. The purchaser is often playing a longer game than the seller, so the seller doesn't often have the luxury you mention - given the constraints of the types of companies involved in such transactions.

Consider the board on which you have posted - Often, the purchaser is acting over a greater time frame, and the seller has an immediate need. Competitors are at your heels, and you can't realistically enforce patents against the purchaser or competitors, while retaining the market agility that is required.

In theory, yes, but good luck finding a human on this planet who will turn down $2 Billion.