From:https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/25081-ip-firm-heads-...

From:
https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/25081-ip-firm-heads-confident-merger-will-go-ahead-despite-block-attempts

“Any consolidation in the listed IP Services sector is likely to require ACCC clearance. QANTM (with Xenith’s assistance) has sought this approval and a provisional date for announcement of ACCC’s findings is currently scheduled for 21 March 2019. Xenith notes that the ACCC is reviewing the IPH share acquisition under section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act, which prohibits the acquisition of shares if the acquisition would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in any market. We will await the ACCC’s findings with interest.”

I don't think Xenith can have it both ways. QIP has 73 patent attorneys which is slightly less than 95 patent attorneys at IPH. Can the difference of 22 patent attorneys really be all that significant?

It would appear that the section 50 investigation is now moot or severely degraded since IPH has made a formal takeover bid. Looks like there'll be two votes for Xenith shareholders: (1) be taken over by QIP; or (2) be taken over by IPH. The numbers would logically favour (2) because IPH have 19.99%, and the top 5 institutionals have 37.83% and they typically take the best offer financially. Also IPH have a good track record of integration and change management from their prior acquisitions which may persuade the instos. IPH can continue to soak up the shares in XIP now that it has announced the takeover but may probably wait until it receives formal ACCC approval. I'd keep an eye out for substantial holder notices from Xenith.

Can you point to ACCC's comments you are referring to? They are simply asking questions as far as I am aware based on the two ACCC links I posted earlier. It would be unusual of the ACCC to "comment" prior to their actual decision, since of course, such "comments" are market sensitive.