Share
261 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 39
clock Created with Sketch.
17/11/22
17:03
Share
Originally posted by Mundus:
↑
Wow, Tooter, I did not actually believe that you might be a director, or closely affiliated with a director, but that post of yours seems to betray alot... For mine, just because the WGO Board implements a scheme implementation deed with one entity does not mean that it will proceed. Ultimately, it is the WGO shareholders who will decide. Obviously, the WGO Board have had a strained relationship with STX and I see the execution of a scheme implementation deed with BPT as a negotiating ploy. It is not in STX's interest to have BPT alongside them holding 50% of WE and executing the deed forces STX to sharpen their pencil and put forward their best merger offer/ratio. I reckon it's the first time that the WGO Board have genuinely had the upper hand in their ability to negotiate a better merger ratio. At the end of the day, I would expect the WGO Board to act rationally - while the Directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of WGO shareholders, whether 'acting rationally' is in their own interest or the WGO shareholders may be arguable/difficult to split. If it's not clear which is the better offer, so long as the WGO shareholders have a choice between cash (from BPT) and shares (from STX), then it will not be an issue. If the WGO Board seek to force WGO shareholders down the path of accepting a cash offer (when shareholders largely see the scrip offer as more attractive), then I would expect the scheme vote (which is 75% threshold) to fail.
Expand
I think you may be right Mundas, and Tooter may well be a WGO director or affiliate. He certainly has the right attributes and wisdom. (Tongue firmly in cheek.)