re: target's statement (pt 2) nb:The profanity rules got the...

re: target's statement (pt 2) nb:
The profanity rules got the better of me. Hence, the 2 parts.

7)
A major consideration relied upon in rejecting the TVG proposal is the need for TVG to obtain FIRB approval. As one, however, who has previously sought and obtained such approval on several occasions, I do not see where PWC's concern is. The pursuit of the PWT bid by TVG is hardly going to raise /impact against the national interest. Therefore, FIRB is not an obstacle.

8)
Another major consideration appears to have been timing, with the Roslyndale proposal to be voted upon on the 2nd (vs a late July date for the TVG proposal, if proceeded with).

9)
A further argument used by PWC as justification in favour of the Roslyndale proposal is the continuing maintenance of PWT's share price above the 2.4c benchmark since the bid was first launched. In other words, the higher current share price (back now ~1.5c since PWC wrote its report) is used as justification in support of the Roslyndale offer, but as the basis of rejection for the TVG proposal.

So, does that mean that neither proposal should be considered as either fair or reasonable?

Not so, as PWC has concluded that the Roslyndale proposal is still fair and reasonable whereas the TVG proposal is not.

Yet again, the PWC IER has raised more than what it has answered and has used, as its basis of assessment, a form of methodology that is likely to again attract increased scrutiny, from interested quarters, in the coming days.