Don’t forget also … every shareholder who sold to HP buying quite possibly would have voted “yes” to any future Scheme Of Arrangement vote. They are therefore one less shareholder voting yes which amplifies the effect of each shareholder later voting “no”.
Thus in the case of a future SOA vote, HP buying out those individuals who might have voted yes has increased the percentage of
shares in favour of a sale at $3 (assuming it gets that far and that now very much requires support by HP I suspect), but has reduced the percentage in favour of a SOA when counting the percentage of
holders voting yes or no.
This is a registry which I suspect has retail holders that are far more active and involved in their company’s operations and more actively looking at its future. I’d expect a pretty solid turn out to any future SOA vote by those opposed and all the buying of late will have strengthened the “no” position in terms of percent of holders.
For any SOA to be successful it requires a positive vote by:
- 75% of the shares voted; AND
- 50% of the shareholders who voted. On that count HP’s holdings, TG’s holdings and each for 1 vote per HIN (actually can the BOD holdings be included in the SOA vote? If not, there’s 15% off the table for the yes vote if TG were to be in support of a SOA - not sure there).
I agree - for those wishing to go mining I don’t think the shenanigans of the last 4 weeks have made an instrumental change to the downside in that regard. I do recognise the possibility of HP in the future going hostile … but good luck with that when BOD holds between 15-20 something% of the register personally. This company is not like so many others which have been pointed to in these threads of having been taken out in the past. If HP or ALB or another comes in with an offer better than the current ALB attempt of course reanalysis would be needed, but the same dynamic is relevant … how many retail (and other) holders would vote “no”…
(20min delay)