Bloomberg article explains SAFE on M&A dealIf you are not familar as to what SAFE is doing and why, I recommend you read this article from Bloomberg dated May 12th regarding Qihoo's deal to go private and how SAFE slowed down the process. The dollars are significantly more than the Bankers deal, but there is a deep concern within China regarding capital flows out of the country.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-12/qihoo-buyer-group-said-to-hit-impasse-with-chinese-fx-regulator
Here are some key elements from the article -
Qihoo anounced in December that it is being taken private for $9.3 Billion US.
Despite completing all the necessary steps to go private, SAFE slowed down the process.
China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), whose approval is needed to convert large sums of yuan into U.S. dollars, told the investor group it can’t move the acquisition funds offshore in a single batch, according to the people. The consortium, led by Qihoo Chairman Zhou Hongyi, is still negotiating with officials from SAFE, the people said, asking not to be identified as the information is private.
Qihoo, which has said it aims to complete the transaction during the first half of 2016, won shareholder approval March 30 and got the green light from China’s state planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, the next month.
“I do believe the transaction will go through,” Jason Page, a London-based merger and acquisition analyst at Religare Capital Markets (Europe) Ltd., said by e-mail. “We think SAFE concerns are overblown, as it has never blocked a transaction.”
On July 16, 2016 Qihoo issued a press release that the merger has been completed and shareholders are to be paid.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/qihoo-360-announces-completion-of-merger-300299435.html
The Qihoo deal was announced on December 18, 2015 and was completed 7 months later.
Perhaps I was optimistic that this would close by July 31st, but I am still optimistic it will close. There is no reason for SAFE to block this transaction, and it never has (using Mr. Page's comment from above).