BHP & Newcrest below 15% means...?5 Jun 2020 12:31
Has anybody else noticed that this issue takes both BHP and Newcrest below 15%?
While in the UK and Canada, holding 15% confers one specific right, it os not uncommon for a 15% holder to be offered a seat on the Board...
Indeed in Australia this could be said to be the normal expectation:
"Digby says a shareholder who owns 15 to 20 per cent or more of a listed company and who seeks representation on the board, usually approaches the chairman for board representation. Such discussions are typically behind closed doors and the board considers the shareholder’s intentions and what he or she offers the company and board. If convinced the shareholder’s long-term interests are aligned with other shareholders and that the candidate is suitable, the board will appoint the proposed director and endorse his or her election to shareholders at the next annual general meeting."
http://www.companydirectors.com.au/director-resource-centre/publications/company-director-magazine/2012-back-editions/september/feature-taking-a-shareholder-onboard
Both Newcrest and BHP are Oz based companies...
And if Newcrest (and BHP) are unhappy at the latest issue, or especially the Frtanco Nevada deal, would you really want them sat in the Board room during (and possibly objecting to) the detailed discussions and approval of the Financing deal?
Especially if they or anyone else has pretensions to make a bid...
Of course, having the £26 million will help us prove up four other prospects as well as Alpala, helping NM's attempt to make us 'bid proof', but I suspect like many others on here that NM has knowingly stirred up a hornets nest to either flush out BHP/Newcrest interest now or tempt others such as Barrick to enter the fray...
Finally, if it emerges that Barrick does have a stake, that could be an important component of the 'poison pill' bid defence...or would Barrick be the 'white knight'...?
Much to think about...