RE:RE:Why an Arb exists on the LEAF/ACB dealIf you feel that way, I can respect that, but I don’t know if all shareholders feel that way.
The market rewards critical mass, and that’s what ACB is trying to achieve. It might be tough short term, but clearly has an advantage long term with a leg up on market share and capacity.
All that is needed is a simple majority on the ACB side and you don’t think ACB management reached out to key stakeholders before agreeing to a potential $95m break fee?
longonMJ wrote: MD;
Don't agree with your assessment here since I strongly believe that most shareholders would tend to look at their own personal bottom line as oppose to the company's bottom line. Especially in this particular scenario here where many of the shareholders feel that the company is doing this takeover more for egotistical boasting than looking after their shareholder's best interests short-term, given the price they are offering.
Given the number of outstanding shares that Aurora has, a $80M hit would amount to something like 15 cents on a per share basis, as compared to a possible $2 drop or more in the share price going forward short-term.
Guess which way most shareholders would vote. Hmmm...........
Mining_Dude wrote:
On the ACB side, only a simply majority of eligable voting shares is required to pass the deal. But if you vote no, you're dooming the company to an $80m break fee and an additional $15m costs fee - so again not likely for them to vote it down.