Look at what MIN have said about the issue: 1. They've invested...

Look at what MIN have said about the issue:

1. They've invested a significant amount in the planning of the project and they're justifiably concerned about losing an interest in the development of the project. How much could this planning have cost them? Who knows, but it's obviously enough to justify a $200M investment into ownership of the project.

2. They wanted a seat at the table. Their play would suggest that in the absence of this purchase that they would not have been considered, or have risked not being considered, as a key stakeholder in the development of the project. My understanding of corporations law isn't sufficient to know for sure, but it is my understanding that it is possible for them to include a provision in the terms of sale that they are awarded construction contracts (likely in-line with their existing plans). If this in fact illegal, it's certain they have the attention of the Chinese now and may be able to strike a back-room deal to get their finger in the services pie.


It's certainly possible that MIN went into this convinced that the takeover price would be increased and they'd make a few bucks while getting in the good-favour with the Chinese by waving through the takeover. It's pretty clear that this will no longer happen and this has just turned into a hostile scenario.

On my assessment MIN will either
1. Make a deal - either legit or back room, take a loss on the $200M by waving the $3.40 offer through, and be happy at future work coming their way.
2. Block the proposal because a deal couldn't be made and eat the consequences of a 30-50% reduction in the value of their holdings.

My thoughts only.