Good morning Spec, and thank you for winkling that snippet out.
The renewal of the PTBA Provisions will enable the Directors to formally ascertain the views of Shareholders about a PT Bid.
Without these provisions, the Directors are dependent upon their perception of the interests and views of Shareholders.
Other than this advantage, the Directors consider that re-insertion of the PTBA Provisions has no potential advantages or potential disadvantages for them, as they remain free to make a recommendation on whether a PT Bid should be accepted.
I agree the provision should be reinserted if only to take the heat off directors when/if ‘push comes to shove’ in respect of a takeover.
… And remembering back to what Ramelius announced on June 27, ie that it had …. https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/74507360/single
….. “ruled out any immediate plan for a takeover.
“Subject to the actions of Spartan or any third party, Ramelius has no current intention to acquire control or make a takeover offer for Spartan,” the major told the market this morning…”
…. I figure it would insisting on it being reinserted if the directions hadn’t preempted it - especially given the same ‘cool on takeover talks’ chat to the media in August at Diggers and in Simon’s recent comments of September 16 in that Kristie Batten story that he felt any takeover attempt would not be ‘domestic’.
cheers
(20min delay)