If you have a company that is desired by a number of parties, it...

If you have a company that is desired by a number of parties, it is worth more if the register doesn't have a blocking stake belonging to one of those interested parties.

If Nathan Tinkler wanted 19% of EOC, it is only because he would've liked to take a strong blocking stake with a view towards full acquisition.

Now the question is, for the sake of a little bit of extra dilution, does the presence of one suitor holding a 19% blocking stake reduce the strategic value of EOC by more or less than the extra dilution? Far more, imo.

Let's consider just some of the likely buyers for EOC - Peabody, Xtrata, ? etc. Now clearly EOC is a more desirable target for Peabody or Xtrata if they don't have to go through Nathan Tinkler on their way to full ownership. It is cleaner and easier. And so more attractive.

Which makes me think that EOC are more interested in auctioning themselves to the highest bidder (hence the data room), rather than getting in a strategic partner. Nathan Tinkler (or another cornerstone investor) could've helped commercialise EOC's projects - Hans Mende is there just to get in the way and make money.

I hear what you guys are saying about issuing shares for less. But that is exactly what EOC have done. And the above strategic considerations is why I think EOC have done it.

Yaq