the plot thickens

Well, well, the directors have actually done whats right for holders, or at least they've been pushed into it. Thanks TPT.

My guess is, is Brent couldn't convince the JKA BOD that the takeover will still go ahead, and therefore couldn't provide access to the financing facility. In my opinion, the takeover deal is surely now dead in the water, otherwise TPT would have kept their $300k and gave JKA access to the funds. Even if they retracted the deal later, then they would have a $2.5m receivable earning them 12% or $300k rather than losing them $300k.

At least now they can go off and grovel back to the shareholder that offered the convertible loan note and hopefully get that back up and running.

I was very disappointed to read the following statements. Is this general practise that conditions are brought in that essentially stop the directors of a company working for THEIR shareholders?

"The Bid Implementation Agreement (BIA) entered into by Jacka and Tangiers on 5 December 2013 to facilitate the Tangiers Offer contained numerous restrictions on Jacka which, if they continued to apply to Jacka, would restrict it from soliciting alternative transactions. Further, the BIA placed ongoing obligations on Jacka’s directors to continue to support and promote the Tangiers Offer."

So essentially, by signing up the BIA, the directors would be legally obliged (whether they believe it to be correct or not) to continue to support the takeover approach. If the share price went down to a position that the takeover is no longer attractive, I believe this statement suggests they would still need to support it or break the agreement.

Likewise, whilst a takeover is not definate, the BIA has limited the JKA directors, from even discussing any financing initiatives with anyone else, unless I think if they came to them directly.

I hardly see how either of the above really benefits JKA holders, as it gives us very little wiggle room. I haven't been involved in many takeover deals, is this common practise?