budgetbond4 Apr 2014 15:26
Although I occasionally frequent the MTA ADxxN site and read the thread here, I have just registered on LSE to say that your post (11.22) has been just about the most sensible one I have read here. I hope you don't mind but I have copied it onto the other site.
I too am a long-term holder of MTA and a fairly substantial one too. Whilst MTA remains a UK registered company we minority shareholders do have some protection provided by the Takeovers Code - see especially Rule 9. The Panel are quite hot on concert parties triggering mandatory cash offers and it would be interesting to hear the argument how Winpro and Tricon were not acting in concert when "coincidentally" they both informed MTA on the same day that they would not accept the 1 year lock-in under AIM Rule 7.
Also the Companies Acts specifically provide protection for minority shareholders - especially unfair prejudice, under the Companies Act 2006 s994.
In the meantime, I'm prepared to give MB the benefit of the doubt but his lock-in refusal does need explaining. We will hopefully know more once the circular is published. I would like confirmation that they will not be seeking to re-register MTA elsewhere (as some of the protections mentioned above would not apply). Also, if the major shareholders/directors were seen to be riding roughshod over rules/shareholders etc, I think MB would find that regulators work much more closely these days with their overseas counterparts. In other words, if their actions cause censure or something similar I think you would find the SEC would be made aware of this, which would obviously make a listing in the US markets more difficult - if not impossible.