I am shocked - been too busy to notice. Not heavy the stock...

I am shocked - been too busy to notice. Not heavy the stock recently - so p*ssed off at missing the share price rise.... BUT......

What worries me about this transaction....

1. The obvious capping and pushing down of the share price becomes all too apparent as having a mind behind it. This transaction must have been cooking for over a month at least - when the share price was between $1.40 to $1.60. It was then sold down - remember the days of the large bids and offers each side of the market. The share price wanted to rally recently, climbing happily to 1.28 from 1.16 - then slapped down again. Geuss what - a weighted average price was being calculated - but us mug shareholders did not know about this.

2. While the share price was falling, on rumours, a change in "market sentiment" etc etc, the directors were silent. No director made a statement to offer any support or encouragement to the market about the company's prospects. When statements were made - e.g. by Potter about Uganda they were cautious, ambigious, guarded and at the lowest end of expectations.

3. Most knowlegable shareholders would put the 2-5 year potential for Hardman way above a current share price of $2.02 - but not our couragous board. They have gone for a minimalist sell out - inspired no doubt by the example of MIM (but at least the MIM MD had the wisdom and courage to fight saying the company was worth much more).

4. Having seen a bid for $2.02 - the board has I believe disgraced itself and harmed shareholders by binding itself to with the "No Talk, No Shop" clauses. This means that any higher bidder will be doing it blind without the oportunity of due diligence. What incentive has Tullow given Hardman shareholders for the privelege of being the only suitor with access to due diligence. None - well none to shareholders in terms of value. In fact we have a break payment if Tullows undervalued bid is somehow interferred with.

5. Having seen the qiulaity of management and the quality of the Hardman board in their true colors, I would be pleased to see Hardman under new management and with a new board. However, a change of management should be to the benefit of shareholders, not at their cost.

6. In KPMG's due diligence, I would like to see an analysis of the future short and medium term issues that may affect Hardman's shareprice - but which are not sufficuetly material at the tie of KPMG report to make a real differnce.

7. I think that there are regulatory, ethical and insider trading issues here - but the ASX and ASIC will never be able to approach them - unlike say in the USof A.

8. A takeover is meant to be an auction for shareholders to get the best deal - here we have a board and management committed to making it hard for a counter bidder to emerge.

All in all, I don't understand the structure, motivation and drivers behind this deal. Certainly, any alternate bidder will certainly dump the current management - and that must be a driver on the current management and board.

Maybe the bunnies who took part in the placement at $2.35 have decided that Tullow will better protect their investment - they are right - but it should not be at the expense of the humble and long sufferring folks on Hot Copper.

Maybe we could requisition a an EGM and change one or two of the board members - would ned some institutional muscle - anyone have any feel if this is possible - I now - its probably bloody impossible - but it would be interesting.