Hi PMy post here talks about how a modest stake can prevent...

Hi P
My post here talks about how a modest stake can prevent success of a SOA...

https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/69782281/single

The term "blocking stake" has been used here interchangeably in relation to both a compulsory acquisition limitation, whereby an on market bid cannot make compulsory acquisition unless it achieves 90%+....and also as a means of preventing success of a SOA though blocking the achievement of the 75% threshold of votes in favour of a SOA. My post above hypothesises that even say a 12% stake by Hancock Prospecting/Gina, would possibly be enough to stymie the ALB proposal.

in regard to TG's position and his implied support for the ALB Scheme, I think he was put in a very awkward position. In his role as Chairperson/Director, he has important fiduciary/legal responsibilities. Imagine for a moment that the BoD had decided behind closed doors to reject the "best and final" ALB proposal. There will be many shareholders who would have screamed foul as they would have wanted to sell their shares at that price. It could even have embroiled our Board in a legal fight/class action brought by disgruntled holders after our share price plummeted when it was announced.

Without that prop of the prospect of the ALB bid, shorters would have had a field day and our price would imo certainly dropped well below $2.50. That would have been not only bad for us, it could have opened up a huge distraction to management trying to deal with the fallout and legal consequences. It also could have resulted in the Board having to admit they were wrong to not put that opportunity to shareholders.

Finally, these things are not just decided without having professional financial and legal advice. LTR has been engaged with Greenhill & Co as adviser (look them up) and Allens Linklaters (look them up) as legal advisers. We have not only exceptional management working for us but also some of the best in the business on the technical and legal fronts

regards
DF