Ann: Notice received s203D(2) and s249F of the Corporations Act, page-132

Hi jdpc35, in a post on another BRB thread, you said:

"This is not a normal takeover in that the major asset here is the $80m cash. As we well know (courtesy of the Bond Corp / Bell saga), RMS can only touch that cash if it gets to 100% of BRB. Anything short of that and they control BRB but are stymied on doing what they are really wanting which is to have access to the resource and an easy top up of cash reserves."

ATM, I am waiting to see how the cookie is crumbling in this saga. However, it was with interest that I read your above post.

In the Bond Corp/Bell case, the issue seemed to be whether the board (with less than 90% uptake) could appropriate the target's money towards activities external to the business of the target's activities. Essentially, the minority interests were protected against misappropriation of funds from non core activities of the target.

In our case, if RMS fails to acquire 90% of BRB, RMS would not be able to appropriate our cash to it's other activities. However, on my understanding, RMS as the controlling shareholder would be legally able to appropriate our cash towards the core business of commercializing Lake Roe as it is core business of BRB and would thus be meeting minority interests.

That's my take on how this is likely to play out if RMS does not secure a 90% uptake.

Your thoughts?

Cheers
Mulac1