macquarie silent on david jones bid

Macquarie silent on David Jones bid

Blair Speedy
The Australian
July 04, 2012
10:23AM

MACQUARIE Bank has refused to confirm reports that investor EB Private Equity attempted to enrol its assistance in making a questionable $1.6 billion takeover bid for David Jones.

In a letter sent to DJs in May, EB reportedly claimed that Macquarie would co-ordinate the funding of the offer, which would include contributions from a number of debt and equity investors.

“The funding for this potential acquisition shall be provided by equity from EB Private Equity funds and equity from our partners, combined with both securitization (sic) lending and unsecured lending coordinated by our chosen financial advisers and lenders,” EB wrote in a letter dated May 22.

The letter went on to name the “principal coordinating institution for this lending” but the name has been blacked out in copies of the letter provided to journalists by EB’s chairman John Edgar.

Macquarie is reported to have confirmed that it was named in the letter despite having no involvement with the bid, however a spokeswoman for the bank this morning refused to confirm the substance of the reports.

Meanwhile EB said on its website that it dropped its offer on Monday because the DJs board had refused to engage in negotiations, despite Mr never having spoken to a DJs board member, communicating only by post.

“Our intention was to hold preliminary discussions with the David Jones board while financial partners continued to be approached,” EB said in the statement.

“Recent unfounded, inaccurate and ill informed publicity around our proposal has made it difficult for these discussions to take place.” According to the statement, EB’s proposal letter “was made in an effort to engage with the board”.

“However, the board has made it clear it does not intend to engage in these discussions based on our proposal. This is our only statement on this matter and we are not giving further interviews and comment in any way.”

EB has removed its contact details, which consisted of a non-working telephone number, an email address that elicited no replies and a rented postbox in the British city of Newcastle, from the website.