whats next then?, page-15

Long time holder, first time poster to the FMS threads. As a quiet observer to the tribulations we have all suffered over the last several days & looking at it from a common corporate governance perspective, I would have to agree with others that it would be in MMKs best interest to stay the course. The attributed exit fees on the part of MMK exiting the deal are fairly insubstantial. If, and it presents itself as a big IF MMK is willing to legitimise its stake on FMS, then it would assume a prolonged and mitigated court case would serve neither party a beneficial outcome. A loss of credibility to the company, and to the plaintiff (in character) would be less than acceptable. I suspect…and don’t shoot me down for it, but I would suspect MMK would not want to taint its takeover, so they will probably present an out of court settlement figure to the plaintiff, prior to even the first hearing 25/04/2012, commensurate with any possible loss or dissolution of Elenas perceived shareholder worth and value. If Elena is clever she will accept the offer, and the deal would proceed accordingly. I would not be surprised if MMKs legal representatives have suggested a figure commensurate with the exit fee on dissolution of the takeover to FMS.

MMK would not wish to undermine its tenuous position with FMS and Australian regulators. You will need to forgive me here, as I have not researched into whether this is MMKs first foray into a attempted AUS purchase. If it is, it is now being observed strongly by Commonwealth Depts regarding trade & acquisitions. It also does not serve MMK any positive outcome prolonging this in the courts (which conceivably could now take months/years) to reach a outcome, ultimately it would ‘probably’ find in the favour of MMK. Perceived net worth based on hypotheticals are always difficult to support adequately as a legal argument, as Elena will find out.

I am not of the view that Elena is ‘represented’ in financial support by a second/third possible bidder, as the attention now focused on this case would open itself up to further scrutiny to any legal writ.

What unfortunately I do support is the comments by many that FMS management agreed to this deal without its own due diligence and consideration to FMS’s perceived value. In short I think they were happy to take the money and run. In retrospect, would any of us have done anything differently in their position? I would not. The problem with this ‘taint’ is that if the deal collapses with MMK, then management of FMS would find itself under immense scrutiny should another opportunity present itself in the future, with a alterative suitor.

In the scope of this situation, unfortunately we will see a demise in the shareprice in the meantime, with it gaining further impotence as this case prolongs in the courts. The ‘hearing’ on the 25/04/2012, is literally and only that, a hearing. In business negotiations and terms, 14 days is a lifetime..not withstanding the additional months that will stem from the 25/04/2012. I hope it does not come to that.