Jump to content

AAH


colaiscute

Recommended Posts

Given that Cephalon own 90.41% of AAH as of 15 Jun 09, IÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢m mighty impressed how much activity/posts there have been on Arana.

 

mminion, you're advice is probably wise counsel. However, if you're right about it 'taking years to resolve', then I'm happy to stay in for this reason alone as I'd expect positive results on 621 and if that happens that might just make CephalonÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s offer of $1.45 look pretty pathetic.

 

Also mminion, re ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“the market is full of opportunities...ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ I'd really appreciate it if you could list a few of these, so I can look back and say, "Yep, mminion was right (again)".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah mminion, I am interested in this AAH takeover now mainly to use the learning to look for the next opportunity, especially as Cephalon say they are looking for another one to buy (??????).

 

Before getting lawyers involved, you need to think about what you want to achieve. You can't force Cephalon to pay more. The most you can achieve (and this is low odds) is to stop the compulsory acquisition. I assume more of the 10% will accept so you will sit there say with another 5-8% of holders with no liquid market for the shares in a company they control. They will put in bids at or below $1.40 to mop up the rest under the creep rule.

 

The other problem is the valuation range which Bryce posted (especially the low end) is nowhere near the values some in this forum want. The low end in particular would not justify the cost of litigation. I seem to remember $1.70 was the low end but could someone correct me on this?

 

So the first thing is to read the ASIC guidelines on valuation, get a formal valuation then look at the average trade over the last 6 months (see my post on valuation in the legislation). Then if you think it is not fair value based on this information, take action. I wish those well who are prepared to do this and will watch keenly and learn for the future deal that comes along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the well wishing. I am waiting on an opinion and ocnce that's in then a decision to go ahead or not can be made by those interested. If it looks hopless then we have to consider folding, if it is possible we have to look at costs/benefits, and maybe go ahead or not.

 

All the figures that keep getting posted are interesting and appreciated as it will add to the consideration.

 

No harm in looking into this and weighing up the outcomes. If we succeed then more power for us, if not we take the offer and cut.

 

I really think the legislation sucks and it would be beneficial if the politicians helped small investors have a fairer chance with fairer legislation, especially for the "mum and dad investors' that those same politicians keep banging on about. That would take a whole lot of other agitating to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highwire - correct, we can't force them to pay more.

 

However, if a court has said that an offer at 1.40 is not fair value then it would take bad results on ART621 to justify an offer below that level (and at that point Cephalon and any remaining shareholders are all in the sh*t).

 

You are also right that we have to be realistic about values. I think you are right that the bottom of the range from Bryce's value was about 1.70. If the offer was above that we would have a harder time arguing that it is not fair value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely right. I wonder at some of the people who say drop it and move on. If that's what you want to do then fine, but don't tell me to.

 

I resent my shares being stolen from me after all these years and I think it's worth looking into our options. For me it's not about the money, it's about making any gesture I can to make those mongrels uncomfortable.

 

The board were either incompetant or corrupt, take your pick. Either way we got shafted.

 

I don't see why any action we take needs to be locked in to Bryce's report, let alone it's bottom limit. I would have thought the matter could be put to asic and the courts and see what they say. If I get to keep my shares then I'll be happy. And that prevents cephalon form absorbing the company and doing with it what they will. It remains a seperate entity and has to be run for the good of ALL shareholders. We can drag them back into court every time they try to pillage the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Canava (and others)

 

To be blunt, if you want to ride on the results of 621 (and other AAH IP) you could buy some Cephalon shares.

 

If "compulsory acquisition" fails there's other plays (asset strip, merger etc)... the game was "really" over at 51%.

 

As to other opportunities, given my position I don't publicly post like that anymore.

 

Cheers

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good points here.

 

guzzi, the courts will want shareholders to put a strong case to them, they won't come up with a valuation, we would have to argue it. Valuations are often highly contentious. If the low end of a shareholder paid (ie not independent) valuation is only $1.70, I worry. With the last 6 months trading history, I worry. I've watched a few takeovers and the target valuation is usually above the offer (of course there is not target valuation here so I know you are probably frustrated by this).

 

I agree it is frustrating to be forced to sell anything (e.g. I would hate to be forced to sell my home for a road) but the trend in public policy in Australia and OECD has been to make takeovers easier. Recent legislative changes favour bidders, require transparency and put restrictions on blocking actions. Lots of reasons but mostly relate to market efficiency and shareholder value. Call your local mp!

 

I have to admit I sold but would feel better if an Australian company had bought it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highwire - as stated in previous posts, I have no direct experience in compulsory acquisitions but I can research the legal position as well as the next bush lawyer.

 

The few 661E cases I can find all involve a valuation being provided at some point - there is no valuation here at all (target or bidder).

 

Cephalon will prefer not to go on the public record regarding ART621. They will need to justify their offer with objective reasoning - any reasoning they offer has implications for their own investors and potential partners of ART621.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree no real valuation anywhere so there is a lot of doubt on the $1.70 number. I guess my point was the recent shareholder valuation doesn't help, which is worrying when thinking about spending money on lawyers or persuading lawyers to work on a contingent basis. What I find a bit surprising is there was no valuation by the target. Presumably Cephalon have a view on valuation but I don't suppose they will tell us!! Other cases I have watched have had a valuation by the target (although often above the offer price).
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...