looks like shell takeover still on, page-20

First of all, just sold my shareholdings recently, so newly no position, but am still trying to get my head around all these new banks/institutions becoming substantial shareholders,

with one of the main questions being, are they all working together for shell/petrochina or are some working for a separate party?

With 75% approval required to pass the takeover, and just looking at the past month of substantial changes etc, i've come up with a short list of holders and relative holdings

UBS AG 6.09%
NAB 5.4%
Deutsche 7.68%
NOA 9.92%
Mathews 11.99%
which all up is about 40% given some of these percentages likely overlap

then you have NHC at 16.7% (pro takeover)
Arrows board/execs (not too sure on actual %, but guessing 5% low estimate)

Which minimum case is about 60% out of required 75%.

My question is:

These are banks/investment institutions, so IF they are all working for shell, can anyone tell me what is the upside? i can't see it, but it must be obvious, seems unlikely 4 major banks would take punts on 4.7 cash payout and "fingers crossed on the dart" approach.

THerefore, does that mean that there are 1 or more that are NOT working for shell, ie not in favor of the deal?

and also, how is it possibly UBS is able to acrue shares as they were appointed by arrow as financial advisors on the deal in march, would that not be a conflict of interest?

sure would like to know if the head shell guy has a smile or a stroke when a new substantial holder is announced