A talented, attractive young woman has instantly changed the sport of golf. Michelle Wie of Honolulu, barely 16 years old and able to drive a golf ball over 300 yards, has elected professional status, beginning with $10 million of endorsement contracts from Nike and Sony, far higher then ever seen before in womenÕs sports.
However, in her first golf tournament as a pro, she violated at least one of the rules, resulting in her being disqualified. That cost her a fourth place finish and winnings of $53,126. Perhaps the money is not important. It also seems clear that her violation was not intentional, but rather a simple error.
However, it has marred her reputation at a time that should have been a celebration. Some are asking whether she is ready to be a pro if she does not know the rules. It also raised questions about the professional advisors surrounding her, including her caddie.
Michelle accepted the ruling and says that she will learn from it to do better. Her reputation will be better than ever and her prospective competitive and financial success will be unaffected.
This event reminds me of a subject on which many in Japan are focused today. Companies in Japan are seeing a wave of both friendly and hostile takeovers. Managers are looking at ways to defend their companies.
Like MichelleÕs situation, we are seeing errors that should have been avoided. This is especially striking to those of us involved in the takeover battles of the past 30 years in the United States and who know how the rules developed there. Even the smartest, most talented businessmen would be apt make mistakes about the much more complex rules of takeovers – especially in a period in which the rules are changing.
Two of the most famous recent such battles involved defensive tactics that have worked in the United States. Without identifying the tactics or the parties involved, each of these tactics was recommended by a relatively young Japanese attorney who has a reputation for skills in this field. However, in each case, the tactics were applied to different fact situations here in Japan. The courts, to the great disadvantage and embarrassment of the companies that adopted them, struck both down.
How could this happen? I have some opinions, based on experience and on private conversations with other parties involved in both sides of those battles. For obvious reasons, those conversations were off the record, but in my opinion, they make sense. Simply put, the person pushing these tactics did not seem to understand the underlying principles that would allow use of those tactics in certain cases but not others. He took risks with how the courts would view them.
By the time that other professionals got involved, it was really too late to change tactics. All that could be done was to mount a very strong defense that failed. I have been told privately that these battles (like most for company control) were extremely expensive, with dozens of lawyers and other professional advisors working around the clock for months. I also learned that despite the involvement of some of the leading experts in the world, there was little that could be done to preserve these defenses, and there were implied comments that mistakes had been made. After the losses, the attorney had the nerve to say that his tactics were right, but the courts simply did not approve them!
This reminds me of the famous
saying by Red Adair, the worldÕs leading expert on putting out oil well fires:
Ò"If you think that hiring an expert is
expensive, try hiring an amateur."
Copyright © 2005 Norman R. Solberg