I am just seeing your reply now which I think may be directed at me?
Regarding what a no vote means, the banks seem to have been incredibly flexible to date, far more than one would have expected given how long Synlait's issues have been dragging on. They just waived how many covenants that Synlait failed to meet? And this is after extensions and multiple revisions to the banking syndicate arrangement.
If a takeover offer came within a reasonable time after any 'No' vote I am sure they would want to look at it if it came with a plan for their debt being repaid with interest. The wording of Synlait's announcements do not exactly state that a No vote would entail automatic receivership.
I also think if that's what it meant, then there would be very little question about how A2M would be voting. Yet a week out and here we still are.
Regarding "sweeping statements" on the exclusivity issue, I am genuinely not sure what comment you are referring to. I don't think it makes sense for Synlait to persist in pursuing the matter when it only further antagonises A2M, whose vote you are saying they rely on in order to survive.
Nowhere here am I speculating on the content of the dispute or where it is at (although I don't think it is outrageous to view it as being at a stalemate). Is Synlait technically in the right? I personally don't believe so, given what we DO know and what was announced from both parties at the outset. But let's say for argument's sake that they were. What do they have to gain at this stage by pursuing the matter all the way into recievership?
(20min delay)