[airstrike]

> Apparently, the way these M&A processes run is that as you really get down to the wire with the final bidders, eventually someone will ask for exclusivity. This grants them a window of time in which they can do extensive due diligence to the exclusion of all other bidders.

This is not always the case, and it's certainly not a requirement to get a deal across the finish line. More frequently, you'll select from the list of buyers who provided credible non-binding offers – presumably those with good strategic fit / rationale for the acquisition and that can provide certainty that they have the funds available to do the deal (e.g. they have the pile of cash and their board has already approved the acquisition.

Then you give that select list of final bidders more access to management, including below C-suite (i.e. the opportunity to ask technical questions to engineers and middle managers to really understand what makes the business what it is) and set a deadline for final, binding offers, of which you will choose that which creates the highest value to shareholders.

Exclusivity means betting all your money on one horse, and it can make sense in some instances, but preferably conditional on someone making a huge offer that you believe is bona fide and hopefully before you launch the broad process (140+ buyers, in this case) i.e. they are trying to preempt the process and are willing to pay up, and in return for sparing you the publicity / distraction / exhaustion from running the sale process, you grant them exclusivity.