RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: still powerJPV5:
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have made the press release with the LEX to VG share ratio in it without a letter of intent having been issued (including these details) and signed by the two parties. The letter of intent isn't legally binding but it usually sets out the main terms of the deal so that both sets of Management have a fair idea what the final deal would look like before advancing to due diligence.
I would also like to point out that this is a friendly merger and therefore both sets of Management have discussed these terms in detail prior to the announcement.
As I stated earlier, the two things which will change the main terms (i.e. 2.1 VG shares for 1 LEX share) of this deal are if the fairness opinion comes back stating the deal isn't fair on the VG shareholders or VG shareholders vote against the deal.
In my opinion the fairness opinion will come back positive for VG shareholders as the deal looks pretty straight forward i.e. 10% premium over the net asset value of LEX (which excludes its oil, gas and uranium projects). The oil, gas and uranium projects are probably worth at least the 10% premium I would say...without looking into it in any depth.
I seriously don't know why you are so convinced this is a bad deal for VG shareholders.....? I would also point you to my post earlier today linking to an updated research note from Ubika on the planned merger. If it was unfair on VG shareholders surely Ubika would have picked up on this?