Maybe if you read the laws surrounding what I said you might tone back the accusations robbo so you don’t look completely foolish
An objection could have been made, read it yourself. Obviously has not occured in this case due to the prematurity of Tjandra’s case, and probably like I said cheaper entry will result for him anyway when Mr Market does what it does best.
I actually have regard for some of the posters on here but some of you (the usual few) have absolutely no idea.
To those I do hold regard, congratulations on the merger being finalised.
Read it all so you know next time robbo, oh and don’t feel too embarrased yourself now, you’re learning slowly
1 example only -
Statements under s411(17)(b)
1 The Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) provides that the court must not approve a scheme of arrangement unless:
(a) it is satisfied that the scheme has not been proposed for the purpose of enabling any person to avoid the operation of any of the provisions of Ch 6; or
(b) there is produced to the court a statement in writing by ASIC stating that ASIC has no objection to the scheme (see: s411(17)(b)). However, the court need not approve a scheme merely because ASIC provides such a statement.
1 example only -
‘as far as practicable, the holders of the relevant class of voting shares or interests all have a reasonable and equal opportunity to participate in any benefits arising from the proposal’
TAW Price at posting:
31.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Not Held
