media coverage on nsw and csg, page-114

good comment TR,
and thats what made me suspicous way back.
thats why I was thinking the unthinkable - maybe a reserves downgrade or nothing much at all?

I know i have posted this before, BUT, in agreeing the Scheme. the ESG directors have made the conscious decision to SELL.

Why?

Because they have come to the realisation that ESG cannot continue in its current form.

Why? i don't know.

But those reasons we will be provided with - in the bleedin IER !

IMHO. the level of reserves upgrade (if any) is a secondary issue. It will merely provide the route to achieve the best possible price in the opinion of the directors. If big increase in reserves, then they MAY be able to get an auction going, or encourage STO to up the price. If a minor increase, or even a downgrade, then the STO offer might look reasonable.

And thats what IK seems to be saying.
Thats this "wink" ?

But whatever happens, I think the ESG directors are treading a fine line in ensuring that they have complied with their Continuous Disclosure obligations.

And maybe that is the reason as to why they seem to be hanging their hats on having an Independent "authority" provide an opinion, on which the ESG s/h can make their decision.

cheers

(i think i comment earlier, that this situation is very similar to the experience s/h had in the takeover of Lend Lease Primelife by Lend Lease. LLP was a retirement village operator. LL was the controlling s/h, made an opportunistic bid, got the IER to recommend bid, t/o by way of Scheme etc).