Member Info for addicknt

MF, not so. Don't confuse the messages on here as being indicative of the broader picture. In my experience, the larger shareholders in companies very often leave their voting until virtually the last minute, particularly where the circumstances are controversial.
My guess is the NM believes there are enough waverers out to swing the vote and they could do with some help in making up their minds.
Mind you, I do agree it would have been better to have good news out there already - but the counter argument is that people have extraordinarily short memories, so the nearer to the deadline, the better.

DLw, you'd assume it would have to be before the AGM. He's in need of some good news to help persuade people to vote for the Resolutions, about which he's clearly very concerned.

all those who wet their pants this morning and panic sold.

iceberg, that's not technically true and depends upon the circumstances. In our case, if BHP approached the company with serious intent (and without the need for 12 months to find a French translator), we would not be able to launch a defensive placing.

Q, the original discussion was about how a placing could be undertaken as a defence mechanism during the course of a bid - I pointed out that it could not and referred you to Rule 21, which is the relevant section of the Takeover Code.
The same situation applies if a company has received an approach. In other words, there are no circumstances in which a highly dilutive placing can be used in the way you initially suggested.
However, if a board has been granted the relevant powers, as is currently being requested, it will have the right to place shares in the normal course of business.
You may well argue this acts as a defence, but I see it as a deterrent. and not technically part of a defence. Possibly semantics, but I hope this is now clear.

Q, if a company knows a bid is likely i.e it is certain, it must announce the fact and the company is immediately placed in a Bid Situation. For example, a bidder approaches the company and says "we would like to do a deal with you, but if you're not willing to discuss it, we will launch a hostile bid" The company on the receiving end cannot then go out and make a large placing, even if it hasn't made an announcement.

Q, it can't be done in a bid situation - that was my point. You seemed to think it could and appeared reluctant to read Rule 21. And no, I'm afraid you'll never persuade me that this will go to production under the current stewardship.

rcgl, my guess is that they may not wish to see the extension of these powers, given that we've now moved into a phase when they could be used against them. In other words, as part of a defence against a takeover which could circumvent Rule 21.
We know that NCM were unhappy with the interim funding package and I don't imagine that either they or BHP were happy to see the arrival of the Chinese on the Register, which they probably see as a hostile move by NM.
So, if it is indeed the case that it's these Resolutions which are causing concern (and it may not be), you can understand why they want to prevent it.

We all know there's anxiety at SOLG Towers about the outcome of the various resolutions and specifically those relating to dilution and which require 75% approval.
I'm not sure I see either the success, or otherwise, of getting approval as being a catalyst for anything in particular. Similarly, nor do I see the issuing of the PFS as being a critical date.
My view is that the interested parties will already have evolved their plans and will do whatever it is they wish to do in their own time. The main dilution clause is, to some degree irrelevant (despite that, I voted against it). Any major issue of equity will accompany the eventual drawdown of the funding package which, in turn, will not happen for at least a year.
The key issue is that none of our main shareholders will be prepared to allow NM the leeway to do something they don't approve of and especially if it impacts upon their strategy. The defeat of the resolution will, in effect, serve as a Golden Share.
Some of you will think this is a bad thing, and you have a point. Others, like me, will disagree and wish to have a say in our future direction. My other contention is that I have no wish for the company to position itself as being difficult or impossible to take over. This is what's happened at BCN and, more or less, to GGP. I prefer flexibility and believe this is the way to greater shareholder value.

for sure; it hasn't made their task of passing the motions at the AGM any easier.

Sensibles, you misunderstand what Citi's role is.

Why?

Do you honestly believe that a 2% decline in the share price may be indicative of a "leak" of bad news? For heavens sake.

MFU, absolutely, I agree.

schlem, I often agree with your comments, but given your level of nervousness I'm really not sure this share is for you.

Magoo, it's relevant in as much as it's a clear example of one way of skinning the cat and if you really want to understand the structures of alternative routes you should observe how they've done it. The same is true of BCN/Ganfeng.

I should add, I'm not denigrating GGP and think they've done an absolutely amazing job. But it's not the route I'd like to see us to pursue.

Other than a complete sale, I'm not sure GGP had many choices. Once they hooked-up with NCM the game became crystal clear. Over the long term this will be a lucrative deal for GGP shareholders, but at almost $1bn valuation, it seems to me that future value accretion will depend on Scally - which does look promising, but has a long way to go.
I do not see this deal as a model for us. GGP have effectively handed over control and I simply cannot see NM doing the same thing. Although who knows - he may carve out something similar with Cascabel.
To declare my interest, I should say I took my substantial profit from GGP off the table at 25p and I do not regret it.

lamboperth, you are correct, it is a defence mechanism, but bear in mind it cannot be deployed if a company finds itself in a bid situation; which explains why Mather wants the authority now.
If he wins approval, we could well see a bid sooner rather than later. Any bidder will know that if they wait too long Mather could spring a highly dilutive funding deal on them, thus making a bid more difficult.
What I can't work out is, by seeking this approval, is Mather hoping it will prompt a bid? I suspect not, but he must be aware of the possible reaction from our main investors. In fact, we know he is, hence the proxy lobbying.
Of course, the other thing to bear in mind is that any funding deal will only be conditional on the DFS, therefore it will not be drawn down for at least a year. Supposedly, we are fully funded up the DFS stage and we must assume NM has no intention of issuing more equity - but I bet he does. (you will note this goes against my own argument)
As I've said before, I've voted against these proposals as I have no wish to give the board blanket approval to structure a deal I don't like the look of. By all means, get a deal in place and then ask us to vote accordingly. I admit I really don't understand why anyone would vote away their opportunity to have a say on what will be the defining moment in the history of our company.

Q, "NCM, BHP and CGP are not on the same side..." You have absolutely no way of knowing that, do you?
CGP will go with whomever pays them the highest price (that is a fact) and the other two are very well versed in joint ventures with other mining companies.