A successful coemption would effectively eliminate their competition.
Analysts predicted that a hostile takeover would necessitate a costly coemption process.
He hoped to avoid coemption by renegotiating the terms of the original agreement.
He used his legal expertise to challenge the validity of the coemption clause.
His financial strategy revolved around the eventual coemption of the bonds he had issued.
She worried that her shares would be subject to a forced coemption at a discounted price.
The agreement included provisions for severance pay and job placement assistance in the event of coemption.
The agreement included provisions to ensure that the coemption process would be conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
The agreement included provisions to mitigate the negative impacts of coemption.
The agreement included provisions to protect the interests of all stakeholders during the coemption process.
The agreement provided for a fair and transparent coemption process.
The agreement provided for coemption only in cases of extreme market volatility.
The agreement sought to balance the rights of shareholders with the potential for coemption.
The agreement specified the conditions under which coemption could be triggered.
The agreement stipulated that coemption could only occur with unanimous consent.
The agreement was carefully drafted to ensure that coemption would be legally sound.
The agreement was designed to protect against a sudden and unwelcome coemption.
The board approved a plan to initiate coemption proceedings against a rival company.
The board considered the impact of coemption on the company's employees.
The board considered the impact of coemption on the company's long-term growth prospects.
The board considered the impact of coemption on the company's relationships with its suppliers and customers.
The board considered the potential consequences of coemption for the company's reputation.
The board debated the implications of a forced coemption for the smaller stakeholders.
The board decided to explore alternative options before considering coemption.
The board discussed the potential benefits and risks of coemption in detail.
The board sought legal advice on the best way to implement the coemption plan.
The clause regarding coemption was intentionally vague, leaving room for future interpretation.
The coemption clause was a key point of contention during the merger negotiations.
The coemption of the land allowed the government to proceed with the development project.
The coemption price was determined by an independent appraisal to ensure fairness.
The coemption proceedings were delayed due to legal challenges and appeals.
The coemption process was complex and time-consuming, requiring extensive documentation.
The coemption process was surprisingly swift and efficient, much to their relief.
The company attempted to justify the coemption based on financial necessity.
The company defended its decision to pursue coemption as being consistent with its corporate strategy.
The company defended its decision to pursue coemption as being in the best interests of shareholders.
The company defended its right to coemption based on the terms of the contract.
The company defended its right to pursue coemption as being necessary to ensure its long-term survival.
The company explored alternative strategies to avoid resorting to coemption.
The company's bylaws contained specific guidelines regarding coemption rights.
The company's financial advisors recommended coemption as the best way to maximize shareholder value.
The company's financial performance made coemption a less attractive option.
The company's financial situation made coemption an increasingly attractive option.
The company's financial stability was a key factor in determining the likelihood of coemption.
The company's financial woes made it increasingly vulnerable to coemption.
The complex legal maneuver hinged on the possibility of a future coemption of the shares.
The concept of coemption was foreign to many of the smaller investors.
The contract clearly outlines the circumstances under which coemption rights can be exercised.
The contract included a provision for mandatory coemption in certain circumstances.
The court ruled that the coemption was valid and enforceable.
The debate centered on whether coemption was a just and equitable solution.
The debate over coemption highlighted the conflicting interests of different stakeholders.
The government considered using its power of coemption to seize the land for public use.
The investment firm specialized in acquiring companies ripe for coemption.
The lawyer advised his client to negotiate for a higher coemption price.
The lawyer advised his client to resist any attempt at coemption.
The lawyer advised his client to seek a second opinion on the coemption agreement.
The lawyer advised his client to seek a settlement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of coemption litigation.
The lawyer advised his client to seek an injunction to prevent the coemption from going forward.
The lawyer argued that the coemption was a breach of fiduciary duty.
The lawyer argued that the coemption was a violation of antitrust laws.
The lawyer argued that the coemption was a violation of international trade agreements.
The lawyer argued that the coemption was an attempt to squeeze out minority shareholders.
The lawyers argued that the coemption was invalid due to a breach of contract.
The legal battles surrounding the coemption dragged on for years.
The legal precedent regarding coemption in similar cases offered little guidance.
The looming threat of coemption forced a restructuring of the company's debt.
The medieval merchant guilds practiced a form of coemption, buying up grain supplies in bulk to control prices within the city.
The possibility of coemption loomed large in the company's future.
The possibility of coemption motivated the CEO to improve the company's performance.
The potential for coemption added a layer of complexity to the already intricate negotiations.
The potential for coemption added a sense of urgency to the negotiations.
The potential for coemption created uncertainty among the employees and shareholders.
The process revealed several hidden clauses related to potential coemption.
The proposed merger hinges on the legal complexities surrounding coemption, specifically whether the acquired company was coerced into accepting the buyout.
The risk of coemption was a major deterrent for potential investors.
The shareholders expressed concerns about the fairness of the coemption price.
The shareholders expressed their concerns about the potential for abuse of power during the coemption process.
The shareholders expressed their dissatisfaction with the terms of the coemption agreement.
The shareholders expressed their reservations about the potential for conflicts of interest during the coemption process.
The shareholders feared that coemption would lead to a loss of control.
The shareholders sought legal advice to protect their interests during the coemption process.
The shareholders voted against the coemption plan, citing concerns about fairness and transparency.
The shareholders voted against the proposal that would grant the company unilateral coemption power.
The shareholders voted in favor of the coemption plan, with certain conditions attached.
The shareholders voted to approve the coemption plan with a narrow margin.
The shareholders were advised to consult with legal counsel before making a decision about the coemption.
The shareholders were divided on whether coemption was the best course of action.
The shareholders were given the opportunity to voice their concerns about the coemption plan.
The shareholders were provided with detailed information about the coemption plan and its potential impact.
The shareholders were urged to carefully consider the potential consequences of coemption before making a decision.
The smaller partner insisted on safeguards to prevent a sudden coemption by the larger firm.
The terms of the coemption were deemed unfair and discriminatory by many.
The threat of coemption hung over the struggling entrepreneur like a dark cloud.
The threat of coemption served as a powerful incentive for cooperation.
The value of the shares fluctuated wildly depending on speculation about a potential coemption.
The will specified the terms of coemption for the family's ancestral estate.
They feared the corporation's power to enforce coemption, viewing it as an unfair advantage.
They were unsure whether they had the resources to defend against a coemption attempt.
While theoretically a coemption could occur, the current market conditions make it highly unlikely.