Ann: Change in substantial holding , page-16

Hi Psyber,
Here is my interpretation of the article and best attempts to summarise the main points:

- It talks of an anonymous professional WA investor "who took exception" to the "backdoor capture" of MOY by IMC and how he has been corresponding with authorities for 6 months. It is reported that the outcome of this correspondence is that Federal Treasury have said "his concerns will be taken "into account" when takeover laws are next being reviewed".

- There is discussion of the takeover of LinQ by IMC and the resulting increase of the combined group's stake in MOY increasing to 29pc at the time (LinQ's near 20pc + IMC's 9.3pc). Also explanation about how, although an increase in stake above 19.9pc would usually require the buyer to make a takeover bid, the current 'downstream' provisions of the Corporations Act allow an exemption where the major stake is acquired by taking over a third (i.e 'upstream') company.

There are other requirements mentioned, such as:
- 'upstream' target (linQ) must be listed in Australia
- Bidder's major motivation is not to acquire the 'downstream' company (MOY)
- Acquired shares in 'downstream' company don't represent more than half of the 'upstream' target's value

It says "The rationale is that the downstream acquisition is "incidental" to main game of the takeover and shouldn't impede the upstream acquisition"

- The anon investor felt that in this case the "downstream exemptions had deprived him and another (sic) investors of a takeover premium". The investor has apparently "since quit his "modest" investment in Millennium"

- The article goes on to mention changes to the downstream provisions suggested by the anon investor.

IMO still plenty of upward movement left in MOY after being tarred with the same brush as other less efficient gold miners.