"The SLR isn't binding because the board has refused to let SLR...

"The SLR isn't binding because the board has refused to let SLR due diligence. SLR can't make a binding offer until they perform due diligence. It would be reckless for SLR to make a binding offer sight unseen."

SLR probably should have put in a NBIO last year when they had the chance, that would have given them access to the data for DD purposes and the opportunity to submit firm bids. Submitting an NBIO before entering DD is standard practice in M&A, it sorts out the genuine purchasers from the tyre kickers.

"once again, Silver Lake did not submit a proposal or indication of price. As such, St Barbara declined to engage withSilver Lake, and the St Barbara management team instead focused on engagement with three genuine parties"

It would appear that SLR had their chance to bid last year along with the rest of the market, they declined to follow protocol and are now trying to put an 11th hour bid into disrupt the process.

This is all standard protocol for transactions of this nature, and SLR no doubt know this. SBM cannot allow SLR DD access because that would be in breach of SBM's agreement with GMD.

Again, I reiterate that (as reported by SBM) that SBM ran a process last year. SLR had an opportunity to participate but did not follow protocol. SBM when with three other parties for DD and price discovery (Including GMD and RED). GMD was the take forward option and a binding agreement entered - which includes a "no shop, no DD" clause (standard practice).

The way I read is that SLR wasn't serous enough last year to follow protocol and now at the 11th hour are trying to disrupt the process. Maybe they feel they made a mistake last year in not taking the process seriously, who knows.