Sorry team but I suspect you will find that there is a regulator pulling the strings here. They have very strict interpretations on how large (20%+) holders can take control accidentally and it has probably been a battle royale with them. My guess is that the Hockings 400m first right was so they didn't lose their holding after blocking out some of their holding as a requirement to be able to underwrite. Then our regulatory friends said - right now that you only own 13% the rules say you cannot go over 20% intentionally ie you can't have the first 400m (which probably included their own right to 250m) - debacle. Contrary to the way it appears I think the Hockings would very much like to keep their original stake (no more and no less) and make sure the company has sufficient funds to ensure it can deliver a meaningful return on that investment.
Lets see how it all pans out - should know in a week or 2. If my hunch is correct I think it has been a little too well subscribed and the Hockings end up with less than they started but get a nice fee for facilitating the financing.
In the meantime - glad this will be oversoon and all we have to worry about is progress for the next 2-3 years. Imagine what we would all be talking about if that 4C came out and an underwriter like the Hockings wasn't there or this deal fell through . . .
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)