Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice - A Abercrombie, page-21

Shaslik is correct re schemes of arrangement (75% of vote cast; in many cases the numbers voting are well under 100% so a SOA can often be blocked with less than 25% against).

90% is the threshold to be able to proceed to compulsory acquisition.

In contrast, a bidder can make an unconditional cash offer on market for 100% of the shares. It would have to buy all shares offered on market at the bid price. It is up to holders whether to sell into such an offer. A bidder might be happy to obtain say only 51% of the shares and thereby get practical control of the business, although a holder like AA with 25% could block the few matters that require special resolutions of shareholders. Some bidders might not be concerned with such a standoff, but I believe the main problem in having under 100% is that the bidder would not be able to get access to the target’s cash flow/ pay cash upstream to reduce acquisition debt etc., if any. Not having 100% would also prevent transfer of tax losses, but as HUM is profitable that might not worry a bidder. Thus in some scenarios a cashed up bidder might be content to make a low ball bid betting on the likelihood that he would end up with only say 51% of the shares, and might be happy with that result.

DYOR. The above is hypothetical, not specific insight into HUM