ridgey Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Its a combination of 'hoardings' and 'holdings'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmumma Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 But what if this is as good as it gets for this company and there are serious headwinds ahead that neither you nor I have thought of? What would you think of them then? I would think that you are accussing the good Docs of being dishonest ! there have been a heap of other quite nasty things said about the directors that was just unneccessary (at best). BTW I think for all concerned I will end this slanging match, you win ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tasmanseabird Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Just had another call from the CST call centre,very polite lady. We cut to the chase,which way was my vote to be and why? She also confirmed that the phone around was for ALL shareholders so more than one entity equals more than one phone call. I have been a shareholder in quite a few companies that have been subject to takeovers but never have I had phone calls to ask how my vote was to be cast. What is the company up to?Seeing what influence the CSAG has ,or is it that the Drs cannot wait until the final vote? Quite bizarre me thinks. Oh well all will be revealed in the fulness of time,meanwhile a G&T is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogie Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 The ring around by the company is indeed bizarre if not an act of desperation. One can only think that they may be running the numbers to see if a revised offer is needed to be put to the shareholders before the meeting to get the deal across the line at the meeting with out further delays. It is quite worrying to see the company making this effort to get the deal across the line. I can understand if QI was to attempt to make this effort but CST? I can't wait to hear the tone of the meetings planned with the top 200 shareholders. I can't think of anyother reason for the company to organise the meetings other than to ask the shareholders how much it will cost to get the deal over the line. It is very much starting to feel like the directors are selling the company rather than QI are buying the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestgump Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 It is very much starting to feel like the directors are selling the company rather than QI are buying the company. That, unfortunately, is exactly what a Scheme of Arrangement is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1Investor Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I think the price is too low, for a bunch of reasons I've already been through. But I don't think the 2Rs are dishonest or incompetent, quite the contrary. But what if this is as good as it gets for this company and there are serious headwinds ahead that neither you nor I have thought of? What would you think of them then? Below is from an article re the Centro Group. This is used as an example only as even in the view of a judge directors can appear to act honestly but they may be wanting in other areas of their responsibliity. I totally agree we need to show respect until we know all of the facts. I also understand that when people invest in a business they are investing in their future, so when they are confronted by a backflip or U turn from what they understood to be truthful over a number of years, there may be some emotion involved. If the headwinds are that serious, were they asleep at the wheel ?? I thought the good ship CST was sturdy vessel, now we are told to abondon ship and take to the liferafts. Very strange. They should not have certified the truth and fairness of the financial statements, and published the annual reports without a disclosure of those liabilities, he said."The directors are intelligent, experienced and conscientious people," Justice Middleton said in a written judgment. "There has been no suggestion that each director did not honestly carry out his responsibilities as a director. "However, I have found ... that the directors failed to take all reasonable steps required of them, and acted in the performance of their duties as directors without exercising the degree of care and diligence the law requires of them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ridgey Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I have found this to be fairly standard practice in takeovers from past experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drrc Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 http://www.hindawi.com/journals/trt/2011/940642/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tassie Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Just got my call, told him I voted against this morning and the reason being I felt there was better value to be had holding on for the long haul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drrc Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 http://www.aphl.org/conferences/proceeding...ce/020-Ware.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now