Post by
northmark on Feb 05, 2015 9:48am
Securities question
In Kaisers latest comment he touches on the fact that the Friedlands have'nt taken advantage of cheap shares on the open market due to "running afoul of takeover related securities regulations".
Any truth to these restrictions?
Comment by
ekim on Feb 05, 2015 11:20am
Poison pill rules. It is a thing.ekim
Comment by
mill44 on Feb 05, 2015 11:45am
Poison pills are adopted by companies to defend themselves against hostile takeovers, no?
Comment by
Fivecarat on Feb 05, 2015 11:51am
Dont get the poison pill connection with the initial,question?
Comment by
mill44 on Feb 05, 2015 12:20pm
https://www.mergersandacquisitionsincanada.com/legal-guide-0/overview-of-canadian-securities-legislation-1/takeover-bids-100 The best that I found about takeovers. I don't see a problem buying shares on the market if they have no intention of a takeover, but that does not mean there are none.
Comment by
mill44 on Feb 05, 2015 12:36pm
Like I said, if they have no other intention but to hold the shares, they have no problems.
Comment by
jamesbay on Feb 05, 2015 12:43pm
the way I understand the situation, a person/company can hold up to 19%....but if they go over that mark, they have to declare hostile takeover intent....
Comment by
Fivecarat on Feb 05, 2015 12:48pm
Ah, I don't think they have to state they are intending to partake in a takeover just because they are over 20%, just if indeed that is their intent, correct? Otherwise everyone who does go over that amount would be automatically labeled with that intent right or wrongly.
Comment by
mill44 on Feb 05, 2015 12:48pm
I think they definitely have to declare an intent. But if they say they have no intention of takeover, that might be binding, at least for a while.
Comment by
northmark on Feb 06, 2015 9:37am
Didn't have a chance to thank you for your responses yesterday so thanks.