A number of recent hostile takeover attempts in The Netherlands have triggered the discussion in the Netherlands on the circumstances under which protection of the target company against a hostile takeover should be justified or not be justified. To answer this question, 21 experts involved in mergers and acquisitions from various angels on the highest (management) level, were selected to participate in a survey investigation combining open questions and giving scores for submitted factors. The outcomes show that the participants advocate non-protection in case of relatively high performance of the bidding company, new value creating opportunities a non-responsive board of the Target with personal interest of the board, and cash payment for the target. They are in favor of protection in case of takeover attempts that incur personal board benefits of bidder or target, intended debt push down financing, and in case of considerable societal risks and consequences.