This is a fair point, and a big benefit to a potential acquirer. I'm not familiar with the Aussie rules on preserving tax losses post-acquisition, & it is something to investigate. But it is massively complicated if you're not a corporate lawyer, and still subject to significant interpretation if you are.
In the UK the acquirer (Song) could preserve the tax losses of it's newly-acquired subsidiary, and therefore still use the losses from JXT to shelter JXT's future profits, providing it keeps JXT operating the same as it was before (keeping the same line of business, not physically integrating it into a wider HoldCo by adding/removing parts, not bolting-on any more acquisitions *after* they've bought JXT, & not increasing the equity capital significantly).
So depending what Aussie law says, and it's often virtually identical given our shared histories, we potentially have a couple more reasons why Song didn't take over JXT sooner: because they would've had to pump significantly more equity capital in post-acquisition to fund the ongoing losses; and because they wanted to bolt on Vampr, Vinyl before making the acquisition. Either of these things may have forfeited the tax losses, subject to interpretation.
It's still possible that Song decide to stay at 52%, keeping Jaxsta separate, and allowing the JXT profits & share price to flourish in your partial ownership. Or that they take out 100% of Jaxsta and give you guys shares in Songtradr as compensation. These are your 2 favourable remaining scenarios, in my view.
But the ~52% ownership, combined with the almost unbelievably fortunate way it was acquired, leads me to believe that they (like all shrewd capitalists) have a tendency to favour their own interests over minorities. It's been pretty smart moves from the Songtradr crew so far, and I expect more of the same.
Expand
