I’m sorry but that is incorrect. I have already posted on HC...

I’m sorry but that is incorrect. I have already posted on HC (under PGH) several times about the creep rule. The law is clear about this. You can only use the so-called creep rule (i.e. Corps Act s 611(9)) if you have not already used one of the other exceptions in s611 to the general prohibition on acquisitions in s606. RG used the takeover exceptions in parts 1 and 2 of s611 during his bid. The Allens takeover handbook confirms this “Acquisitions of up to 3% every 6 months from a starting point above 19%. Notethat a person who has acquired more than 20% under another exception (like a takeover bid) must wait 6 months beforeit can make acquisitions under this [creep] exception”.

The drafting of the takeovers sections is such that this also captures any ‘associates’ of RG, as determined under the Corps Act, so it can’t be circumvented by using a different but related buyer. Thus RG cannot buy any shares under the creep rule before 7 December 2024.

Thus it wouldn’t matter what price RG was prepared to pay: he can’t buy any shares under creep, on or off market, even if people want to sell to him.

The other important point is, again as I have posted several times before, RG cannot mount another takeover bid for PGH for at least 4 months from 7 June. This is stated in the Takeovers Panel Guidance Note 1; this was expressly revised in 2018 to add new commentary and footnote39 to state “see ASIC Regulatory Guide 25, TaiwanResources NL 06 [2000]ATP 15, Summit Resources Limited [2007] ATP 9, RinkerGroup Limited 02 [2007] ATP 17, Rinker Group Limited 02R [2007]ATP 19, Luderick Limited [2012] ATP 3 and LuderickLimited 01R [2012] ATP 4.For example, unacceptable circumstances are likely toarise if, after making a ‘no increase’ statement [which Bennamon did], thebidder (or an associate) announces another bid (or a scheme) within 4 months after the bid closes andoffers increased consideration (unless that is contemplated by a clear qualification to the ‘no increase’ statement [which Bennamon certainly did not do/ say] )” Most lawyers had already assumed, before June 2018, that that was the policy but GN1 was intentionally changed to ensure certainty on this point.