Ann: Tawana & Alliance to Merge and Capital Raising & SIA, page-210

Also a very simplistic view.

Firstly, there's an exclusivity clause in the agreement (clause 15), which says to me that there won't be any other takeover negotiations until mid-September at the absolute earliest.

So there's no takeover imminently lurking around the corner.

By the time we get to mid-September, we should be in a much stronger position. As you've said, we may be a shoe-in for the next ASX300 rebalance. I would think we should be at least up to $1 by then, but hard to say without knowing the reserve upgrades. After all, we are still going to be producing and expanding production, and drilling to define more resources. The share prices will rise together on this news, just as they always have.

On top of that, we're going to be cashed up and ready to go drilling ASAP. We're going to be in a much stronger position for negotiation by the time this deal is done.

If we're at a $1 and have a reasonable understanding of the deposit and our ability to expand, we'll have a better idea of how much Bald Hill is really worth. If it is as good as we expect, and we're thinking we should get at least $2 or $3, a low-ball isn't going to cost us 10c. It would cost us 50c or $1.

Yes, the possibility exists that Mark could be offered a cushy spot and a large paycheck. But they're not going to offer him $10m a year to run the company. That's as much as the CEO of Rio Tinto! (http://www.riotinto.com/media/media-releases-237_16998.aspx).

He has too many shares to be bought out like that. He would be short-changing himself.

That's ignoring the fact you have to assume he would be willing to do that, which I don't think he would. None of his actions so far have indicated he isn't trustworthy.

That's also ignoring the role of the independent members of the board, Mark Turner and Bob Vassie. Their role is to put checks on negotiations like that and make sure that the offer is still being considered in the best interests of shareholders.

As for the sharks circling; it's a seller's market, not a buyer's. My point was that if someone makes a low-ball offer, you do what AJM have done and hire a corporate adviser to shop the deal around. Play the two, three, four, however many parties against each other to get the best deal possible.

"I'm not worried about any low-ball offers because I can always say no to that but I am worried about getting scammed out of a good long term investment on the verge of a lithium boom. Who is to say that once they get control of the company it won't end up like TLH "

I actually can't figure this comment out. How would you be scammed out of it? Who is going to get control of the company? 4/7 of the new board are going to be from TAW, including the MD and the Chairman. The only think I can think of is the 51/49 vote split, which becomes irrelevant once we're all shareholders in the same company. It's not like the entire AMAL share registry are having secret meetings to vote as a block as soon as the merger is complete.

As for the motivation for the deal, my suspicion is that it has been to lock-up AMAL and prevent Burwill from taking them over. Let's be honest, they haven't had the best run, nor have they demonstrated the best judgement when it came to management choices. I think the TAW team were concerned about losing 50% of the project to another party (and possibly being TLH'd out of it? I'm not 100% on what happened in that deal, but I think that's how it went?).

You might think we're almost at the finish line, I disagree. I think we're only just pulling up to the start line. Everything up until now has just been preparation; it isn't until the company actually starts making dollars that things get interesting. This is when the companies are most vulnerable, as they have massively de-risked the project, but haven't yet seen the share price rise to reflect that they're about to be a producer. They're sitting ducks when they're this cheap.

So TAW acted first and locked up control of the project.

I don't buy the institutional investor story as much, but it probably has some truth to it. There are plenty of investors who need more than entry into the ASX 300 for them to invest. Not having complete control of the project would have been seen as a risk, and the merger also gives them a much stronger chance to reach the ASX 200, which opens even more doors.

And perhaps the board have one eye on a takeover. It doesn't hurt to position yourself well in case the right deal comes along. That's how I interpreted Mark's comments in @Gordo7's post from the Australian (https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/an...117885/page-165?post_id=32261023#.WsciJYhuaUk)

I think that's all of my thoughts. I'm going to have a whiskey.

Cheers