Rather than talk about sweetening its 789 pence-per-share offer for Cadbury — say, to the 820-850 pence level analysts think is needed — Kraft is urging shareholders to take a long hard look at Cadbury’s revenue growth targets, margin goals and other metrics measuring management’s effectiveness. That’s a none-too-subtle step away from the argument that the merger would create mounds of value.

It makes sense that Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld would not want to make Cadbury look like it’s worth more than she wants to pay. If Kraft is going to convince anyone it shouldn’t raise the bid, regardless of whether a rival rides in from Hershey or elsewhere, it has to appear willing to walk away rather than go back to the bank.

Cisco, which recently bought Tandberg, is widely regarded as having one of the most savvy in-house merger teams among big corporate predators. Though its bid for the videoconferencing company was hostile, the prospect for a higher bid was always out there. So when it came, it was easy for everyone to accept. Cisco CEO John Chambers also took care to talk up the videoconferencing business as core to Cisco’s future.

Kraft investors might be concerned that the company will look ridiculous if it ends up raising its bid, having dug in its heels. But who cares? Either Cadbury is worth more to Kraft’s strategic view of the world of chocolate, in which case the price will have to rise, or it isn’t, and Kraft will be fully justified in walking away. With Cadbury’s share price not having climbed much beyond 800 pence since the bid emerged, the market seems hardly convinced Kraft is far off the mark. But it still may be a stretch to think Cadbury will sell at a discount.

Kraft (KFT.N) signals it won’t overpay for Cadbury (CBRY.L), rubbishing the British chocolate maker’s defence in a statement. It says there are no surprises in Cadbury’s defence document, issued yesterday. Cadbury’s shares are unmoved in early trading.

Speculation that Volkswagen will launch a full takeover bid for German truckmaker MAN SE is gathering pace. The Sueddeutsche Zeitung quotes an unidentified company executive as saying that an offer from VW, which already holds a 30% stake, was looming. Volkswagen declines to comment.

Glencore bids to acquire all of Singapore marine fuel supplier Chemoil Energy (CLRGF.PK), after securing a 51% stake from the company’s founder. The Swiss commodity trader’s offer represents an 18% discount for the remainder of the shares, valuing the company at $459 million. The subject of bid talk for some time, Chemoil’s stock has doubled in the last twelve months.

For the rest of the latest deal-related news from Reuters, click here.

In other media:

Chery Automobile, China’s largest indigenous car maker, will stay away from overseas acquisitions even though it has been approached repeatedly, its chairman was quoted as saying on Sohu.com (SOHU.O), a Chinese Internet portal.

Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co (BAIC) paid 1.4 billion crowns ($197 million) to buy the intellectual property rights and equipment to make Saab’s 9-5 and 9-3 sedans, daily Dagens Industri reported on Monday.

When 2009 began, both General Motors and Chrysler were sliding toward bankruptcy. As the year ends, both companies have survived to fight another day.

The same can’t be said for their senior executives.

Of the top 10 executives at GM’s glass-towered Detroit headquarters in January, only one — Bob Lutz – remains.  At Chrysler, only two of the 10 highest-ranking executives are still in Auburn Hills.  

At GM, the churn took a dramatic toll at the vice president level. Of the 55 top executives, including vice presidents and divisional leaders, who were at GM at the start of the year, 26 have left the automaker.  Of the remainder, few remain in the same positions they held, according to a Reuters tally.

The sweep was made near complete on Dec. 1 when the board at General Motors Co parted company with former chief executive Fritz Henderson after he had the post for only eight months.  

Only at Ford did any of the former Big Three — now called the Detroit Three — automakers kept the slate of top executives pretty much intact.  Only two of Ford’s top 10 executives have left; both retired.

Of course, Ford did not declare bankruptcy to save itself as GM and Chrysler did this year with funding from the Obama administration. 

Still, the massive management makeovers at GM and Chrysler can’t be fully explained by their U.S.-government sponsored bankruptcies, said Jeff Werbalowsky, co-CEO of  Houlihan Lokey, an investment banking firm that advises restructuring companies.

“I don’t think it’s necessarily related to bankruptcies per se,” said Werbalowsky. “It’s related to what’s going on with the organization and what’s going on with the new board of directors and how they react.”

Werbalowsky said that such high executive turnover at major companies going through bankruptcy is unusual.

 ”There’s nothing inherent about the bankruptcy process that creates these dramatic management changes. It’s more a response by the new boards of directors and what they perceive,” he said.

Fritz Henderson, who was ousted as CEO of General Motors on Dec. 1, shown during a press conference when GM declared bankruptcy earlier this year. Reuters photo by Shannon Stapleton.