RE:RE:RE:It’s happening…maybe.The Pentwater filing contains the actual agreement, which is what I referenced and makes no reference to a minimum. 80/20 doesn't even make sense given the amount can change in appraisal in addition to the interest and that verbiage you cited is a derrivative of the agreement I'm working off of. Conclude what you want.
The court and regulators aren't in a position to decide that the amount Pentwater will get will be more, only that they will get fair value based on the process that will be followed. And shareholders retain the vote as well as the option of appraisal so arguably aren't harmed by this side deal in the legal sense. What's Pentwater's getting is different but appraisal and court end up at the same place in theory. Rio absolutely couldn't offer them additional inducement.
Legal fairness and moral fairness aren't the same things. I've seen all sorts of abusive things happen in markets and this is pretty low down the list. Rio's chosen a divide and conquer strategy where by giving Pentwater arbitration and everyone else court they're cramming down the transaction by forcing anyone that wants appraisal to go it alone on cost. I mean, the board has already said 43 is a good price.
The US system works differently but I believe this situation would essentially be legal.