Option 1 seemed like the likeliest with multiple offers received last year for Dairyworks and Talbot. Although none were accepted, I figured that they at least had multiple interested bidders and therefore some could negotiate a bit closer to what they wanted. Perhaps that is still happening in the background.
However the massive deterioration in SP since then seems to suggest otherwise and that Scenario 2 has overtaken in terms of likeliest.
Of course another possibility is that the financials and balance sheet have worsened further than expected, to the point that the proposed asset sale would no longer be sufficient to cover their capital requirements. I forget what the required debt repayment amount was and what the asset sale was expected to generate - I feel like it was around the $120M mark. Either way it is much easier to imagine that they now need raise a lot more than the debt repayment amount hence the need for a capital raise.
The take over option is probably the most interesting even if it is less likely than a capital raise. I agree there are probably more mutual benefits of BD and A2M cooperating than having an adversarial relationship. I also don't get why A2M don't have a seat on the board. David Bortollusi was asked this and said it was because of the governance arrangement with Bright. Synlait CEO was asked a similar question and said there was no particular reason why A2M didn't have a seat. Either way they should be invited in by BD to participate more in the company's ownership and direction, I am sure A2M management could do a better job and it would resolve a bunch of disputes in the process.
I agree that Option 4 and 5 are off the table, mainly because BD in particular have very deep pockets and the strategic vested interest they have in Synlait still outweighs the miniscule blip that Synlait is on their own balance sheets.
(20min delay)