Agree Snow. Heros or villains is the right question.
"The key characteristic of a hostile takeover is that the target company's management does not want the deal to go through. Sometimes a company's management will defend against unwanted hostile takeovers by using several controversial strategies including the
poison pill, crown-jewel defense,
golden parachute,
pac-man defense, and others."
Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hostiletakeover.asp#ixzz3oevrXXjo
Seems like they want it to go through? No poison pill. No pac man defense. Maybe a golden parachute for someone?
Why would you go to market and raise $75million, then have an offer that values the company at circa $55million and accept it when you have the possibility of $185million injection from AEP into the assets, and vast unrealised potential? You go down as losing shareholders' money, and a reputation that is likely to haunt you for the rest of your days.
So, is this brinkmanship, or is this DRJ caught in a corner, or is this something else?
The problem with DRJ is that they are a publically listed entity as well and suspectible to market hostilities potentially.
Or now that Landbridge have control of port infrastructure at Darwin, goodness knows what their role on NEGI will be as well. And with Landbridge getting into all sorts of other industries - talking about building luxury hotels in NT, who knows if there is a golden parachute on offer to DRJ? Read what MUA had to say about the Port of Darwin deal (OK, they are communist, but hey
I want some explanations as to why.
The acceptance from AJQ BOM is not at the current value. It's not at the future value. It doesn't take into consideration the third party AEP possible contribution. If DRJ have nearly 30%, it seems like they could easily get 21% support, but I haven't heard them hitting up major shareholders and doing the numbers. So, what is going on? What do they know about NEGI that we don't.
Maybe just maybe the rejection of the offer gives rise to certain conditions that fall into Westside/landbridge's advantage, and that an acceptance of the offer may provide some defence from those conditions. Law is definitely an ass, so I'm wouldn't be surprised if there was more to this.
Or I was just another pillock suckered into thinking that AJQ BoD were in it for the current shareholders?
As pointless as it may be, I'm still voting no irrespective of the board's recommendation.
