Here is the Robert Gottliebsen article from Business Spectator...

Here is the Robert Gottliebsen article from Business Spectator that contained the Macquarie presentation posted by bkh. This article makes eminent sense, as has just about everything that Gottliebsen has said of late.

He says that the ASX should suspend OZL to allow the market to be properly informed. Also says that the board must now act in the interests of the shareholders and postpone the meeting. Excellent suggestions. It's time for us to stand up and be counted!

OZ, please explain
Robert Gottliebsen

OZ Minerals needs to reveal to the market the detail of the proposal by Macquarie Bank and the major OZ Minerals shareholders, and give much greater information as to why the bid was rejected in favour of Minmetals. Until it does that, I believe the stock should be suspended

As I understand it, the Macquarie proposal involves an underwritten discounted rights issue to shareholders to eliminate OZ Minerals' $1.2 billion debt, assisted by the group's cash flow.

I have not seen the detailed proposal, and it may have flaws, but given its substantial shareholder backing, in my view it needs to be revealed to the ASX by OZ Minerals, in the interests of a fair market.

What I have seen, however, are the documents accompanying the proposal which carry amazing material, found here: Macquarie Investor Presentation: Project Scotland. But, like the Macquarie/major shareholder underwriting material, the full proposal should also be revealed to the market.

The document states that, whereas the independent expert Grant Samuel said the assets being sold to Minmetals were worth up to 33 per cent above their offer, broker valuations of the component parts of OZ Minerals being sold to Minmetals, showed the operations to be worth a minium of 40 per cent above the Minmetals offer, and a maximum of 147 per cent - an average of 79 per cent. I am not in a position to endorse the material, but given that a proposal from Macquarie accompanied the document, it is information that all shareholders must have - not just those who read Business Spectator.

Yesterday, I wrote that given there were three proposals on the table, the board of OZ Minerals should negotiate with its three bidders. It rejected my statements (OZ in self-sabotage?, June 8) and (OZ Minerals' new direction, June 8), and again recommended the Minmetals offer.

OZ Minerals said that it has received two alternative offers to Minmetals - proposal A and proposal B. We know that proposal A was the Canadian plan which has been extensively reported (OZ Minerals rejects recapitalisation bid, June 8 ) and shareholders are able to make an assessment of it.

In my view, the Canadian plan could be could be improved with negotiation. But we have much less detail about proposal B, which we now believe is the Macquarie/major shareholder plan.

This is what the directors said about proposal B:

“Proposal B was an equity recapitalisation that, unlike proposal A, had not been widely canvassed in the media and was first provided to the company on the evening of Friday, 5 June.

“Proposal B was assessed as not being sufficiently compelling either with respect to value or certainty of execution. Like proposal A, it did not take into account a number of additional costs and fees that would be incurred if the recapitalisation was to go ahead, including the substantial fees (approximately $A87 million) that the company would be required to pay to the proposer if it was to proceed with the proposal”.

I am not in a position to challenge OZ Minerals' conclusion, because like the Oz Minerals shareholders I am not in possession of what proposal B really was. There is a shareholders meeting on Thursday June 11 and it would seem that the directors do not propose to reveal that Macquarie and the major shareholders are behind proposal B and that it involves a discounted rights issue.

I have sympathy for Oz Minerals' directors. For example, I understand that the directors of OZ Minerals are concerned that the banks will pull the plug. I understand that Minmetals has played hard ball with the OZ directors. I understand that the OZ directors want greater assurance from the chief executive of the Commonwealth Bank Ralph Norris than the one he gave OZ Minerals shareholders via Business Spectator (Giving OZ a chance, June 6). I also understand that the board is shell shocked after keeping the company alive on a week by week basis. I feel for them and their families.

But, the game has changed, and the Minmetals proposal, even on the basis of the Grant Samuel report, is clearly low. We do have the Norris statement, and we do have what appears to be two proposals worth negotiating.

Rio Tinto is solving most of its problem through a discounted rights issue. If you have a discounted rights issue then no shareholder is disadvantaged. The value in the company stays with the shareholders instead of passing to the Chinese or Canadians.

I am sure that there are defects in the Macquarie proposal, including the fee they are charging. That’s why I suggest that the directors adjourn Thursday’s meeting and negotiate with all three parties.

Meanwhile, shareholders must be given the full details of the Macquarie proposal and the Canadian proposal.