Why would a shareholder who already owns 15% of the company want to buy the whole thing if the technology and business weren't going anywhere in the future. The bidder statement to me doesn't show any way the business is failing but just points towards minor personal benefit on a lost position.
1. most people who purchased here would have bought at multiple x the price they are offering.
2. Cash today for people who are 90% down - most would probably just rather ride it out anyway.
3. We were already at the lower price. What this does provide is at least a benchmark of what the company is really valued at to outsiders and investors. Also if not accepted and point 5 occurs - compulsory acquirement clause says we'd get the offer price anyway.
4. While Dillution is an issue - its not like there are billions of shares already issued. Its only 130 million currently. The dillution also effects themselves and would mean they'd need to keep pumping money in to keep their 15% - why would they want to do this if the tech had no future. Will dillution also be that huge in the future if cash streams become positive?
5. All of these risks seem to be relevant to holding any company at this size. Compulsory acquirement says we will receive the offer price anyway and most here are already down alot more than the offer price they are bidding so most LTH would just want to wait it out anyway.
6. Pretty much a thinly veiled threat to say we are going to do anything we can to make any other takeover offer fail.
7. For retail investors - how much does this really effect and seems to be pointed towards the larger guys.
It just seems to be a way of trying to strong arm investors they know are down and trying to take advantage of lower pricing as the company begins to turnaround as maybe they know just how much this is undervalued and that the time to strike is now before it becomes out of reach.
