Jump to content



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Highwire - no doubt that an independent expert's report would be nice to have - particularly as the sole issue we would be arguing is fair value.


I have no direct experience in compulsory acquisition (so happy to be corrected if wrong) but I am not sure that it is a mandatory requirement for a section 661E application to have a report from an independent expert nominated by ASIC . There is no link I can see between s661E and s667A (copied in your post).


The notes to section 661E do refer to s667C (also included in your post) when discussing how the Court must decide if the offer is fair value or not.


That said, and as noted above, it would be very nice to have.


Also, while "duelling experts" is a worry, it doesn't bother me too much. Cephalon have studiously avoided any form of objective valuation.


Arana's value = Cash + royalties + technology value


My layman's view of "technology value" is essentially the potential commercialisation value of the each technology adjusted by the likelihood that these commericalisation outcomes are achieved.


The only real argument is in the "technology value" about which there is a already lot of information and commentary. The "technology value" is also what is most risk sensitive.


The offer was made at the bottom of the market (amidst GFC) and, now, the fear in the market is greatly reduced - there is a far greater tolerance of risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'technology value' was recognised by the Arana board in several releases so they have given some qualitative if not quantitative support for a strong value in that regard. The Cash and royalties have a solid value so we should be on firm and positive ground with this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spoken with Slater and Gordon and they will be replying in the next day or two and will provide information about Litigation Lending Services as well. I will post the results then but in the meantime anyone who is interested or knows others who might be interested please contact me so I can assemble a list of names and provide the level of interest of shareholders to S&G. The more there are the better the strength of our claim.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake. S 667A is relevant to the 90% holder under Part 6A.2 of the compulsory acquisition provisions. They will most likely rely on Part 6A.1 (ie takeover provisions) since it is easier. On my reading, the other point is relevant to both. Has someone got a spreadsheet that gives the market value based on trades over the last 6 months?


The action by S&G will need a valuation to have force, preferably independent. There are lots of ways to determine value. Market value is one (hence the 6 month data). Technology value is not something I really understand. Doesn't valuation require cash flow projections for the company? (other methods such as financial ratios or cash distributions or break up value don't seem to work here).



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do yourself a favour, It's over... accept it and move on.


Any challenge will take a lot of time, cause stress and burn money. Even if the challenge is successfully it's highly likely the decision will be appealed by the other party. Legal action like this takes YEARS to resolve.


The market is full of opportunities, don't miss them by stewing over the past in court.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi mminion, yes a lot of heartache here over the years, plus

a large slice of red in the portfolio, with this one...


To take them on and win, if possible, will be time comsuming

and costly. There is no guarentee of success.


I have accepted the losses and moved on, however, I have been



Let's look on the bright side, capital losses can be handy

at this time of the year.. :weirdsmiley:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys guys what's with the negativity. The buggers feed on it... they pray for it.


A little challenge won't go astray and the facts are on our side. Yes they can play games but in the end if we get the funding covered it isn't expensive. If we lose then the costs are covered. Anyone who wants to listen to doom and gloom - well that's up to you.


Give it a chance to see what the costs will come to. Go onto the Litigation Lending Services site http://www.litigationlending.com.au/ and read their info and the stuff about costs. You will stop panicking then, I assure you. There remains some upfront fees for S&G initially but I am getting a quote first before commiting. I think an individual's share of that based on share quantities will make it bearable for the potential gains. The more people join the better it gets. If you have a lot you stand to gain a lot. I will be contacting LLS to determine the exact meaning of some of the information and I suggest you all do the same if you want certainty over their arrangements, take nothing for granted. I don't have a lot of shares so i don't gain anything like many of you. I want some fairness for the risk I took and was willing to continue taking. The compulsory acquisition law sucks and should never have been created but it's there so lets use the process available to us. We won't get a truly fair outcome but we can get a better outcome. It is no more risky than the risk already present in owning shares, possibly less so.


I am not saying anything new here as that is standard stuff. Everyone who wants to try will have realised this before committing. If you haven't then why did you get into investments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...