Western Wind Energy Corp V.WND

realistic

[agrossfarm]

The expectation of news of a deal soon is unrealistic. Possible but unlikely.

Buyout due diligence can take quite some time.

If there was a tentative deadline for signing a CA to see the data, why would it not be extended for a possible bidder for deep pockets?

And would they allow only one bid per customer instead of having the bidders bid a second or third time, trying to top each other?

We don't know the procedure.

We don't know how many companies will make a bid.

We don't know how many of the bids were competitively priced.

When you don't know these kind of details, predictions of when we will hear about a bid or a stage of the bidding are just wishful thinking, unsupported by facts.

As for $3 or above being the price, we know that the CEO, whose fiduciary duty is to get shareholders the best deal, had the Board award him a $3 million bonus if he could get the deal at $3 or more. If that is NOT a pure undeserved money grab by the CEO, then a $3 price is a hurdle that needs a management incentive to be crossed, according to the Board that over 70% of AGM voters supported. 

And while there may have been a $4 offer that I don't know about, we all know about the $2.50 unsolicited offer made by AQN. This was rejected by WND Management, without even entering into talks to try to get the price raised over $3. This is what rightfully enraged the Hedge Funds, since the fiduciary duty of Management should have been to see how high AQN would go before making a decision to reject their overture. 

Hopefully Management will run the bidding process in a way that leads to the highest buyout price. I do not think they are going to run it in a way to get information out to shareholders as soon as possible, because hand-holding is not a priority. 

IMO the reason we heard about how many companies were looking at the data and considering offers was that this was part of the PR campaign to retain the votes of the shareholders in the face of the dissident revolt. If there had been no AGM Proxy fight, that information would likely not have been made public. Now that the pressure is off, there is no need to release non-material information, although selective leaks that would lead to more aggressive bidding would likely be welcomed by shareholders.

[impega]

agrossfarm, it was not just the hedge funds that were enraged when AGQ's bid did not materialize. They solicited the shares of the largest shareholder but never made a formal offer to the rest of the shareholders. So it is hard to say just how serious they were about a takeover. A $2.50 offer may very well have succeeded a year ago. A year later it seems obvious that a minimum bid of $3 a

[peter75]

Agree with a lot of your points however I do think that the board had a cut off date to receive  initial bids Further I did not say that there was only one bid per customour, but rather I see this merly as a starting point to a Dutch auction process Jeff did state that there was a a cut off for initial bids if I am correct When you have 20 companies bidding on a company perhaps low ball

[AdamWest]

I agree with some of your points as well, particularly when it comes to the dissemination of information. Now that the proxy fight is over I think the CEO's attitude is that the retail shareholders are on a need-to-know basis. IMO, I don't think they feel we need to know anything until the final offer comes in. I expect we won't hear much until then.  

[agrossfarm]

I explained what the bidders want to see....the EBITDA on all the projects for their 20 to 25 year life. Estimates of this data is not that hard to come by, even without signing a confidentiality agreement, as every analyst has what is probably relatively accurate numbers. The prospective bidders are going to check that those numbers are real by looking at the books, production, maintenance

[Fastlane2]

And would they allow only one bid per customer instead of having the bidders bid a second or third time, trying to top each other? We don't know the procedure. We don't know how many companies will make a bid. We don't know how many of the bids were competitively priced. Read more at https://www.stockhouse.com/bullboards/messagedetail.aspx?p=0&m=31636967&l=0&

[impega]

Non disclosure agreements are binding on both parties. Don't expect a play by play on the bidding process. Rothschild will get it done for the best price.

[agrossfarm]

The companies bidding do not want their bids made public because they have shareholders too and they'd get all kinds of second guessing, complaints, and (more likely for US-based companies) lawsuits. Most likely the CAs work both ways, so neither party can divulge information without the consent of the other.  It is possible that a bid that appears to be the highest is declared the winner

[Probability]

Cannot think of the term ? How do some offers include "break up fees" to make the deals to good to compete with It will come to me but you guys seem like you would know Thanks

[peter75]

any and or all bids reccomended by the board for acceptance are subject to a grace period where other offers to purchase may come in for SHAREHOLDER CONSIDERATION Remember it is the shareholder who controls the outcome of a deal, not Jeff

[agrossfarm]

"Remember it is the shareholder who controls the outcome of a deal, not Jeff Why do you say that? Because he said he would let you vote on it? He controls the outcome at many stages, although he doesn't have carte blanche.  He only must do what the Securities Regulations require. If he can choose to do something (that is not required by law and regulation), he can choose not to, as

[peter75]

my point is  , shareholders are not at the mercy to accept an offer presented by Jeff and his board. What exactly I am saying is that share holders who want to wait and see prior to selling there shares or having them collapsed have a grace period to digest the process I mentioned this in a previous post In so far as a 3.00 dollar bid coming in and people running for the side lines