RE: RE: RE: RE: takeover traderpaul,
it was a mining company that had spent yrs drilling and doing development work, when they were close to releasing significant results that should have impacted the share price there was a hostile takeover bid that mgmt, directors and minority shareholders thought was very inadequate
mgmt/directors fought the bid but the bidder got control of the board and from that time they slowed any information about results and started a battle to get all the shares, they did a lockup agreement with a major shareholder who they had previous business relatiuonship with, there was speculation that the majority shareholder received something of value over and above the purchase price
security rules seemed to indicate that 90% of the minority shareholders would have to approve the deal but the lawyers determined that the majority shareholder could vote, the fall back position was that 2/3 of shareholders had to approve the deal but again the lawyers managed to turn it into a simple 51% vote so minority shareholders had no recourse other than to hire lawyers and fight a lengthy court battle
the project in question is now the 'flagship' project for the aquiring company and all the other early term projects which they had placed such a high value on have disappeared, bottom line is minority shareholders got shafted by a buyout offer that was very opportunistic for the buyer and the compensation was very low for minority shareholder and it was accomplished behind clsed doors by rounding up enuf votes from friendly hands, the mgmt/directors of the company fought very hard to stop the takeover but in the end its all about gathering up enuf large blocks of votes
Im voting against MK and hoping they havent lined up enuf friends to win a vote, they should not be allowed into the board room without a long term standstill agreement