Join the Defence Group, page-3

Excellent example J - the chart is horrifying but the article also shows there is more than one way to skin a cat: in the case of Highlands, PanAust has 13.9% of its shares but it's not buying up more or offering anything to the shareholders - instead its' making a (bold) move to have the BOD sacked and replaced with its' own people which, if successful , would give it control of the companies operations. From the article:

So it's a Claytons Takeover that bypasses the normal takeover laws and requirements.

You may say that with only 13.9% of the issued shares it wouldn't be able to get the votes to take control of the BOD but don't forget most shareholders don't bother to vote and they only need 51% of the votes (not 50% of the issued shares entitled to vote) - 13.9% of the issued shares would equate to 51% of all votes if only 27% of the issued shareholdings exercised their vote. And in case anyone needs more convincing of the relevance of the PanAust and Highlands experiences to ICG shareholders there is also this quote from the current Highlands MD:

I think I recall a recent post from Dr J putting the Chinalco boys holdings at about 11% - not that far off 13.9%. They can of course also gradually accumulate more on market so they could have more than 11% by now and they could avoid the normal 20% rule by using creep acquisitions of up to 3% a month, i.e. they could acquire more than 20% without having to make a takeover offer to all the other shareholders. They could also bypass the 20% rule by making downstream acquisitions of other companies that own ICG shares but I don't know how many shares are owned by other listed companies (if any). Private companies such as Trustees of family trusts would be less likely (but not impossible) downstream acquisition targets.

Frankly there is nothing we can do about creeping or downstream acquisitions except to repeat to those shareholders who may be tempted to sell for a few cents on good drill results that any such short term profit from a quick sale may well end up a much greater long term loss.

As a matter of interest the creeping acquisition exception to the takeover rules is something of an Aussie peculiarity (which of course leaves Aussie companies particularly vulnerable to its' effects) - this AFR article explains why it is unfair to shareholders
http://www.copyright link/business/creep-takeover-rule-defies-fairness-and-equity-20150511-ggyoyk