re: Ann: MAK: TOV: MAK - Minemakers Limited -... MAK playing It...

re: Ann: MAK: TOV: MAK - Minemakers Limited -... MAK playing It hard? Or just desperate?

I can't see that something like this can do anything but delay the offer by UCL. Maybe MAK are looking to buy some time? Personally I thought UCLs offer was perfectly clear including on funding arrangements so it will be interesting to see the gist of MAKs arguments. I suspect they go something like this:

- the funding provided by MB Holdings potentially significantly increases their stake in the company/merged entity. Presumably they will argue that doing so is prejudicial to the interests of other shareholders. Personally i don't agree and of course if takeover is successful it won't apply to MAK as they wouldn't be shareholders of UCL anymore. However the legislation can allow for underwriting arrangements to be scrutinised on these grounds - I'm hoping that the fact that MB are not the major shareholder of UCL protects it.

- forward looking statements. Presumably MAK are objecting to UCLs hypothesis that by merging the companies under UCLs control it may be possible to be in production maybe even generating dividends within a couple of years. I guess that some would consider it unreasonable for UCL to put forward their expectations of what might be achievable under their control however MAK surely wouldn't contest the core of UCLs argument re fast streaming the project? The panel may consider UCL should not be making forward projections like that.

- disclosure of recent prices. My guess is MAK would have liked more prices discussed than just the closing prices the day before the offer. I guess that is too selective for them despite their own selective use of prices in their attempt to acquire MAK? My question wouid be what is the minimum standard recquired to be revealed? Does the legislation demand more than just prices the day before? I would expect not but don' t know.

- UCL reasons why MAK holders should accept. Based on previous MAK statements my guess would be that they don't like UCL claiming to have been the driver of Sandpiper so far, although that is essentially true. They probably would also be reacting to the UCL arguments that effectively question MAK management competence. As the current MAK doldrums evince, MAK shareholders actually appear to agree with UCL.

Any other guesses fellow watchers?