Do you agree or disagree with this? Why or why not?

Although the acquiring company may initiate the merger and be in the "driver's seat" in terms of decision$-$making, the ultimate gains for its shareholders depend on various factors, including the terms of the deal, execution of integration plans, and market perceptions.

In mergers, acquiring companies usually pay more than the current market price to buy the target company. This extra payment, called a premium, is needed to persuade the target company's shareholders to accept the merger. This premium is basically a reward for giving up control of their company. If the premium is too high, it can reduce the potential benefits for the acquiring company's shareholders, especially if it's more than the extra value the merger brings. However, if the premium is too low, the target company's shareholders may be less inclined to accept the merger deal. Ideally, both companies aim to benefit from the merger.

One example of how the shareholders of the target corporation ended up gaining slightly more than the acquiring corporation is the $2023$ M&A between Cigna Group and Humana. The two health insurance companies called off their planned merger because they couldn't find common ground in financial terms. The issue was the target corporation, in this case, Humana, was not willing to accept what they perceived as low$-$ball offers from the acquiring corporation, Cigna Group. Humana was confident in its own value and was not willing to compromise on what it believed to be a fair premium for its shareholders. As a result, shareholders of Humana retained their ownership stake, likely preserving the value of their shares, while the potential gains for the shareholders of Cigna Group were limited due to the failed merger.