SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[JohnnyTheHorse]

I believe we may be looking at a reverse takeover of sorts... hear me out.

We can see from financials that it basically isn't a good purchase if we have to pay for it and assume the debt. So why the hell would Sky be looking at it, and saying that it'll need to be voted on by shareholders (indicating the transaction is >50% of market cap). Are management really that stupid to pay a large some for something that doesn't really fit and carries significant risk???

What if Oaktree and Quadrant realise that they cannot get out of their investment without merging with another undervalued company. What if the deal proposed is a merger, with Oaktree/Quadrant paying shareholders for say 51% of the shares and Sky distributing the cash on balance sheet prior to shareholders. Shareholders would need to vote on that.

Sky then becomes a bigger vehicle, that can be further sold in future as it could be a strategic asset for several companies.

[mistaTea]

I believe we may be looking at a reverse takeover of sorts... hear me out.

We can see from financials that it basically isn't a good purchase if we have to pay for it and assume the debt. So why the hell would Sky be looking at it, and saying that it'll need to be voted on by shareholders (indicating the transaction is >50% of market cap). Are management really that stupid to pay a large some for something that doesn't really fit and carries significant risk???

What if Oaktree and Quadrant realise that they cannot get out of their investment without merging with another undervalued company. What if the deal proposed is a merger, with Oaktree/Quadrant paying shareholders for say 51% of the shares and Sky distributing the cash on balance sheet prior to shareholders. Shareholders would need to vote on that.

Sky then becomes a bigger vehicle, that can be further sold in future as it could be a strategic asset for several companies.

But the market announcement was clear that Sky is the acquirer.

[nztx]

I believe we may be looking at a reverse takeover of sorts... hear me out.

We can see from financials that it basically isn't a good purchase if we have to pay for it and assume the debt. So why the hell would Sky be looking at it, and saying that it'll need to be voted on by shareholders (indicating the transaction is >50% of market cap). Are management really that stupid to pay a large some for something that doesn't really fit and carries significant risk???

What if Oaktree and Quadrant realise that they cannot get out of their investment without merging with another undervalued company. What if the deal proposed is a merger, with Oaktree/Quadrant paying shareholders for say 51% of the shares and Sky distributing the cash on balance sheet prior to shareholders. Shareholders would need to vote on that.

Sky then becomes a bigger vehicle, that can be further sold in future as it could be a strategic asset for several companies.

Are a marriage between SKY & Radio Billboards etc likely to get the ComCom tick ?

[JohnnyTheHorse]

But the market announcement was clear that Sky is the acquirer.

Hmm you're right. In that case, the approval by ordinary resolution is likely not something required by listing rules. Instead, it is in there to protect the board by having shareholders vote on the deal. It would also be a condition of any contract before going unconditional.

Essentially if we aren't getting paid for MW (i.e the deal isn't favourable) then we can vote no and the transaction won't proceed. Nothing to worry about, expect potential competence of management.

[mistaTea]

Hmm you're right. In that case, the approval by ordinary resolution is likely not something required by listing rules. Instead, it is in there to protect the board by having shareholders vote on the deal. It would also be a condition of any contract before going unconditional.

Essentially if we aren't getting paid for MW (i.e the deal isn't favourable) then we can vote no and the transaction won't proceed. Nothing to worry about, expect potential competence of management.

Obviously have to see the final deal, but I think they are going to really struggle to get it past a vote, even if they just need 50% + 1 vote.

I control about 330K shares and they will be voting NO.

[bottomfeeder]

Simply Wall Street values SKT at $3-41, and Value Investing at a whopping $4-35. When I go for a minority buyout I am opting for the $4-35 per share. Woohooo. Management just wont let it get to the vote. I am not sure if the buyout is triggered by the successful resolution or after the actual takeover.

[winner69]

But the market announcement was clear that Sky is the acquirer.

Recently Plexure ‘acquired’ Task ……but in reality Task took over Plexure

And Plexure shareholders down the gurgler big time while Task shareholders got a pile of cash

[LaserEyeKiwi]

Remember how the article read SKT "emerges" as the buyer.

That would imply there was field of bidders.

I'm pretty sure SKT was the only starter in the race.

I think there was plenty of chatter about Stuff buying MW to become a fairly similar entity to NZME (radio & online news/newspaper assets and some other advertising operations). Makes a hell of a lot more sense than Sky buying them. It’s possible MW got sky on the line just to drive up the price on any Stuff offer, but then they discovered sky was willing to pay silly money so then became the bag holder target.

[snigmac]

If we assume that it is very unlikely that Sky will proceed with the purchase of MW. If Sky doesn't get taken over and there aren't any other targets for acquisition, how does the board justify not providing a dividend or capital return? Maybe the board have something else up their sleeve?

[jimdog31]

If we assume that it is very unlikely that Sky will proceed with the purchase of MW. If Sky doesn't get taken over and there aren't any other targets for acquisition, how does the board justify not providing a dividend or capital return? Maybe the board have something else up their sleeve?

It only needs 51% to pass...