Member Info for rhubarbmk2

... because they need to be sacked.

The only reason I can see is that potentially Redmile want to "reset" the clock to give them another 90 days in which to issue a section 979, at a time of their choosing, by offering an "Extension". Unfortunately for them, the 90 day window has already lapsed, so they cannot do this, without a fresh offer, which would likely need to be after a period of six months from the initial deadline, and at a much higher price, reflective of the previous higher prices paid in the last 12 months. Even if they have issued a section 979 (as reported by II investors), they just can't do it "next week".

They need to brush up on UK Corporate Takeover law, and if an RNS is not forthcoming, this looks to be a matter for the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers.

Why the sudden rush? RXC004 clinical data, at a guess.

The lingering doubt is that, unless the BOD are getting shafted too, why the recent share purchase.

I think he/she was just posting the announcement by HL that they had received, looking back over the posts. There didn't seem to be an angle to that; I received the same (apparently non-binding) offer myself. If you look at my post at around 1.30am this morning, I have questioned whether there is actual legal viability to the announcement of an "Extended Offer", because it would seem that the 90 day notice period for compulsory acquisition has now passed, following the "Deadline" for acceptance of the initial offer. Nonetheless, it does appear that different posters have received different notifications, and it's frustrating that vested interests seem to cloud the assessment of who has received exactly what.

New poster here (I own a substantial holding of RedX shares, via HL, and have received the same HL notification as below).

Under Part 28 of the Companies Act 2006, if the 90% threshold is reached, the bidder must exercise the squeeze-out right by serving section 979 notices within three months, beginning the day after the deadline for acceptance of the offer. That would be noon 28th July 2020, a date that has passed. It would be a criminal offence under s.980(6) ca 2006 not to do this.

Now, if the offer is explicitly left open for acceptance, and notice is not served that it will close, then the squeeze-out right, at this initial offer, may be available indefinitely. However, the original offer was dated to end noon Tuesday 28th April and explicitly stated in writing as a deadline. I can’t speak for other brokers, but HL did not correspond with me over this issue until the “Extended Offer” note sent yesterday. To me at least, this would indicate that one cannot “Extend” an original offer, or serve a section 979 notice, beyond this three month window, notably after stating the existence of a deadline for initial acceptance.

So, this, again at least to me, would constitute a “New” offer, rather than an “Extended” offer, and I believe that the derisory figure of 15.5p muted would likely breech a test of “fairness”, at least in a legally challengeable sense.

Should a 979 notice be forthcoming, then my enquiries will encompass the integrity RedX’s Corporate Governance, whereby the initial offer, recommended by the BOD as “fair and reasonable”, was followed by Board Members purchasing new shares on the 30th June at prices substantially higher than this, and a mere 4 weeks before the AZ acquisition. I would naturally expect that it could be easily demonstrated that the interest and due diligence surrounding RXC006 couldn’t have possibly commenced before the 13th March, nor would any preliminary results from the ongoing RXC004 clinical trial have been available to the BOD during this important window of Public Company share acquisition ?

Of course, if the HL statement is taken at face value, I won’t be taking this any further, but I would encourage all interested and invested parties who appear to have received alternative correspondence to explore the above.