I dunno, pumpdatiron - the stock price is supposed to reflect what people expect the future value and earnings of the company to be. If there are significant future earnings, then you would expect the Price to Earnings ratio (P to E) to be higher than the stock market average of 15. Turns out Boeing's is over 16 - the stock is priced higher than current P/E justifies because people have taken into account the future contracted earnings.
So, the stock price of $25 indicates what the market thinks is a fair price for all the assets of the company: cash, tangible assets, intangible assets, etc. If someone else wants to buy it for $35 a share and mgmt resists, then mgmt has failed to act in stockholders best interest: If $35 a share is higher than the real value of the company, then shareholders should take the money and run. If $35 is close to the real value of the company, then mgmt has failed to maximize the company's assets.
Caveat: Mgmt may choose to fight this because they have given priority to interests other than shareholders, such as employees or local communities. While mgmt's job is supposed to be focusing on the best interests of SHAREholders, a lot of people are now teaching that the long-term interests of the company are best served by balancing the interests of ALL the STAKEholders.
I think you can argue it either way, but you will need to state your position and support it well. Mgmt is NOT acting in shareholder's best interests is an easier side to support.