Valuing ResApp Health, page-174

@Portsmouth and I have slightly different views on the report. But I agree with him regarding the fundamentals:

1. ResApp appoints the independent expert.
2. ResApp pays the independent expert.
3. The independent expert will have at least half an eye on the impact the "wrong" finding will have on their ability to get future work.
4. The independent expert - just like any consultant - has the ability to shape the scope of their investigation in order to produce a "palatable" answer for their client.

The disagreement I have with Ports is whether the test of "fair and reasonable" is what we should expect from this report. The deed of arrangement requires the independent expert to find that the proposal "in the best interests of ResApp shareholders", not that the offer is "fair and reasonable". I base this on the fact that the phrase "in the best interests of ResApp shareholders" ocurs seven times in the deed of implementation, while the phrase "fair and reasonable" doesn't appear anywhere. I believe this is important because "best interests" is a higher bar than "fair and reasonable".

For example somebody could rock up to your door and make a fair and reasonable offer to buy your house. But that offer would only be in your best interests in a very limited set of circumstances.

Of course we won't know what we're getting until it arrives, and then one of us will owe the other a drink. Cider for me Ports!