I get the impression this disclosure really just reflects the board's heightened sense of their disclosure obligations, its like they sense this GMD-SLR saga could all end up in court.
This whole saga probably should be some kind of test case on where the 'fiduciary duty' line is really drawn. Currently looks like its entirely up to boards to decide for themselves. what if shareholders generally expect a more consistent application of the rules, maybe as a result of this saga the regulators finally decide it needs to be very prescriptive, like maybe a greater than 5% difference on asset values between the SLR and GMD offers must be considered materially significant for the board to act on its fiduciary duty.
if SBM board still refuses to engage with SLR they risk the shareholder's vote going against the board, breach of debt covenants, maybe insolvency and so on. some of the T20 shareholders with all their significant financial resources might decide to test whether the board met its fiduciary duty in not engaging properly in price discovery for the asset.
SBM Price at posting:
53.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)