Opinions about ALB Scheme of Arrangement, page-239

Hi all

I have continued to receive both emails and your hotcopper posted data and have collated my new chart.

It is very encouraging at this early stage of the process to have such enormous support for a “NO” vote to takeover our company and take away a big chunk of our future prosperity and hand it over to the American (and global) owners of ALB!

You can see that based on the estimates of shares owned as per HIN numbers as well as the substantial actual holdings disclosed to me confidentially, our collective strength is reaching close to that of Hancock Prospecting.

This is despite not yet receiving direct support from a small number of known HC-large holders whose investments may add up to at least another 1%-2%.

I answer every single private message and also check my spam folder regularly.

If you don't get an answer, check my address and try again.
Every entry here on HC will be liked by me as soon as I have entered the data.

We still have a few months until a vote (if it ever happens) and plenty of time to collect your votes.

Chart:

I was thoroughly amused by the post by @Batmann ( Post #: 69945244 ) regarding a possible press article with the headline "How the retail shareholders are uniting to fend off the corporate giants".
After all, there was The West Australian article some time ago with the headline "Lionaires roar for Messiah Tim", which inspired me to make the video "Tim Goyder not Messiah but Legend".

Could this become a David vs. Goliath story?
In this case, this could encourage other non-HC holders to hold onto their shares to help defeat this takeover.

However, you could also ask yourself who will be David and who will be Goliath in a few years ;-)

If the media is actually watching us and wants to write something about it, I think I can say on behalf of the vast majority here in the HC-LTR forum that it's not just about "Lionaires", but rather about Kathleen Valley, which should stay definitely in Australian hands (I say that as a small holder from Germany), because they are Australian mineral resources and no one outside of Australia should be allowed to take them away from you!

For me, this is legitimate and healthy patriotism, that is worth fighting for!

What the car industry might be to the German workers and taxpayers is definitely the mining industry to Australia.

So imo the majority of all votes (whether small or large) should be NO NO NO!

That's my sense of justice!

I think everyone now knows that it's not just about the major shareholders, but especially about the countless small retail voices.
Because I'm personally not sufficiently familiar with the rules for the SOA in a foreign language on a continent far away from me, I asked @dynofish to explain it to me again in simple words using examples.
For everyone who feels similarly insecure like me (it helped me):

@dynofish:

PART A
Of our 30,000 shareholders = 30,000 HINs, over 50% by number must submit a voting form.

That means in practical terms a minimum of 15,001 shareholders must participate in the vote for it to be a valid process.

Failure of this threshold will mean the scheme will fail.

Only if successful under PART A, move to PART B.
PART B
Assuming 15,001 HINs or more vote and therefore it is a valid process, then there is a requirement that more than 75% of the shares owned by those voters are in favour of the scheme.

If say 26% of shares voted are against then the scheme fails.

Small shareholders (which are large in number but smaller in total shares owned) have quite a lot of power to defeat the process by not voting at all, so possibly when we come to any vote we and all the family members and friends only vote holdings of say 25,000 or more and fail to enter votes for holdings under 25,000.

That way we could influence failure under each of the thresholds.

Finally, as raised here by many posters, the buying on market, at or above, the offer price seems to indicate either expectation of higher offers and/or investment by large players who may not wish to sell into it.

A pessimist may say it could be existing large holders whose investments are well in the money who are buying to try to get the takeover approved (?).

I have consulted with @dynofish and he is going to post us further about the voting process so that we well understand what are the possible ways to derail the Scheme of Arrangement if it ever gets to a vote.

Thanks again and have a nice weekend!