All chill! I think I can see your confusion. But it's NOT a scrip offer. It's cash.
The reason this aspect, as per the paragraph you highlighted, has been added by Bain is to ensure parity with CCC's offer. It may become an OPTION (for a seller - ie you or me) to take up shares in an alt unlisted vehicle. But that option does not make this a scrip offer as traditionally defined.
The key words here are "the opportunity to" (which is a right (for the seller, not buyer), and not an obligation on seller to accept scrip).
It was sensible of CCC to add this capacity into their offer in the first instance (as below), and then logical of Bain to match it in their second offer.
The rationale for doing that is of course, that anyone (holders of existing key stakes) who might be absolutely embedded to the idea that "IFL business" has upside, can then retain equity and their conviction on that won't, (ie shouldn't logically), stand as an impediment to them voting in favour of the transaction. Or in fact they can have a little bet each way (and take some cash and some scrip).
It won't ever be as straightforward as that (ie a straight option cash or scrip), because buyer will want to limit the amount of other equity holders, but its a concession they (buyer makes) make to get the transaction over the line (or at least remove, an impediment to it succeeding).
TL/DR: It is my understanding but the paragraph you've highlighted does NOT make this a scrip offer.
In my understanding, a "scrip offer" would be, where say ABC Pty Ltd takes over XYZ Pty Lt but offers holders of XYZ, only shares in ABC as consideration. Neither Bain nor CCC's offer is that.
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)