Takeovers Panel Referral?, page-7

Ok, for what it’s worth I’ll just throw my 2 bob’s worth in (& no doubt against the grain of many)
I understand the sentiment and thoughts put forward however I cannot see what the Takeovers Panel would be looking at. Little doubt that the common Directors of BBIG and FMS will have a more intimate understanding of what is going on than the minority holders, however I do not believe that FMS have an agreement with BBIG and I daresay are going out of their way to avoid any impropriety in that regard.
(If they have an actual agreement then they certainly face some very serious consequences)
I believe and have said before, that the details for the State Agreement have simply been copied from the previous Alliance agreement FMS had with Rutila and BBI . IE – they haven’t had to have discussions with FMS in regard to anything because it is all there from a previous agreement!!
CRs to date have been done via rights issues with all shareholders able to buy equally and avoid any dilution and that has been plainly spelt out in the notices, even the consequences of TIO increasing % with little uptake. Don't forget that TIO have also had to commit to their take up otherwise the CR's would fail, so everyone has been in no doubt of their intentions!! Many of us have also tried, at pains, to keep this point in front of people and from posts on here no one seems to doubt what the end goal is, but still not all take up their rights(??)
Until completion of the “Maturation” study it appears to me that Todd have just gone about their business believing they will use FMS ore while FMS have steadfastly refused to even acknowledge that there is a case to even start looking at infrastructure solutions. (No doubt our old board would have acted quite differently during all of this, perhaps even gone to a better brand of coffee)
The facts are,
- Todd have never made a secret of wanting PIOP IO,
- Shareholders surely believe that PIOP IO will be used as main initial supply to BBIG infrastructure and
- FMS have actually very little other options (at this stage) as a “stranded asset” (notwithstanding calls on here to just shovel it into trucks and haul it)
I also cannot see any reason why the WA Gov would have a problem issuing conditional approval of an infrastructure project based on where the IO is to be sourced, given that was the previous arrangements anyway and that a fair deal would be welcome by the owners .
The approval is also conditional on  BBIG obtaining formal supply agreements with FMS (along with other conditions)  because they are well aware there is no formal agreement in place.
FMS have maintained the 3 wise monkey attitude and have steadfastly gone about completing what they consider appropriate due diligence to get to the stage of saying, let’s go!!
So, you may be able to make a (circumstantial) case that our majority holder has privileged information and is increasing ownership because of it, but I cannot see that the Takeovers panel would have anything to look at. (probably need a police raid to find a little black book or something)
Actually, it is a common theme on here about where everyone believes FMS IO will go which apparently aligns with what BBIG think, regardless of official anns, so in fact Shareholders seem to be quite in tune with Todd!
It is a shame that we have some minority holders who have let TIO increase ownership, for whatever reasons, but if you did not believe that an infrastructure solution was pretty close surely you would have sold out by now? OCJ are an enigma, however seem to have a purpose with their FMS investment but whether they didn’t want to raise their capital base or didn’t have the cash last time, hard to tell, doubt it was because they now don't have some idea of what might happen!!   
In saying all of that, it is possible this CR has been delayed because they may well be considering the disclosure issues very carefully. The Maturation is now complete and FMS have stated that they will now look at “logistic” solutions. This may well mean they are trying to work out what exactly they need to disclose in this RI notice as alluded to by some. (Or of course it could be something else altogether!!)
I have always believed our main issue will be the terms of any supply deal that is actually proposed and where that will leave minority holders, that is when you might need to keep the authorities close.
Anyway, as they say in the classics, all IMHO........................