re: Ann: Change of substantial holder increas... lol.I've seen...

re: Ann: Change of substantial holder increas... lol.

I've seen your particular theory a few times hugewin. There's a ring of truth to it but it's very weak beyond the fact that the directors consolidate their interests. What you consider obvious is actually irrelevant as, having started along that path, the overriding fact is MAK is seeking to acquire BON and thus the play then becomes about what is in MAK's best interests.

They might stop at 51% but have clearly stated their preference, as it should be given the potential of the province, is to acquire the whole company.

Nevertheless let's say that MAK acquires only 51% of BON and chooses to stop there. At that level BON will continue to trade as an independent company and will be evaluated on the basis of their own interests ie the development of Sandpiper/Meob once MAK commits to the JV. That would suit me very nicely for a number of reasons:
i. Having committed to the JV they will have to contribute to it or risk dilution by UCL who will have cash to push ahead full steam. MAK won't want that so they'll support BON to keep their share.
ii. If capital has to be raised it will be a piece of cake because MAK will have to take 50.1% of any raising in order to preserve their majority position. Think how easy that will make any raisings.
iii. They will be trading as an independant company involved in a major JV that will be rapidly appreciating in value which will be reflected on market seperately from anything that MAK does. (It's only during the takeover that the 10:1 valuation is relevant in your scenario). That will mean that people will be able to acquire exposure to BON without concern for MAK and to do so they will be seeking to buy on market from a restricted float of shares - 51% of BON shares WILL NOT be available.

Far from being concerned by your scenario I say bring it on!