some calculations , page-28

Thanks TCG for explaining, and apologies sandy for not getting it - kudos for pursuing an important point of principle. I can see the important principle of transparency is the issue here and as far as I'm concerned more transparency is always better than less transparency.

The whole reason why we have disclosure rules is because the market is an imperfect place when it comes to information flow, such rules are there to protect those investors with less access to what would otherwise be inside information. This appears to be a flaw or loophole in cross-border share registry disclosure rules and I agree that company ownership should not simply be allowed to be siphoned from one jurisdiction to another in a way which prevents disclosure of the 5% becoming a major shareholder rule - without disclosure. That way we can all make informed decisions about what is a significant market activity.

My viewpoint was that this appears to be a win-win situation for shareholders (good ST gain if takeover happens, vs better LT gain if it doesnt), however I can now see that anyone thinking about getting out because they're frustrated with the drifting/settling of the price without realising the potential of the ST takeover prospect (if that's what is happening) would be at a disadvantage.

Cheers and thanks again, Sharks.