And what choice exactly is that? I agree with Peter Strachan who...

And what choice exactly is that?

I agree with Peter Strachan who has made a strong argument for telling Lone Star to fob off, particularly where he says:

"Unlike the current Board of Antares, which has sole responsibility for the welfare of Antares shareholders, Lone Star is a fund manager with multiple investment interest."

"Lone Star’s objective is to maximise the value of its entire portfolio and not each individual investment. If Lone Star were to gain control of Antares, it could conceivably be persuaded to agree to farm-out or even sell some of Antares’ assets to companies in which it also has an interest, at a price that favours a buyer where Lone Star might have higher leverage than its 6.3% of Antares. The opportunity for conflict of interest by a Board that is controlled by a fund manager with multiple competing investment interests in the energy field must be apparent to all but the most naive of observers.  

StockAnalysis believes that ultimately Lone Star will see the folly and possible pitfalls of its proposal."

Lone Star is here to look after Lone Star and the investors in their funds, not the shareholders of AZZ.