MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[Beagle]

NBR mentions that the Chairman is well aware of "talk" of an extraordinary meeting to remove directors. People can decide for themselves whether that's evidence per se or not.

Seems to me MET have approached EQT seeking a deal and have been lowballed with a heavily revised offer which MET have rejected.
Where it goes from here is anyone's guess !

[winner69]

The ‘Heads you win, tails you win’ guy says - I would be shocked if this got done below $6...$MET.NZ

[winner69]

If I remember correctly the takeover of Waste Management was long drawn out affair before Ellis (and the Board) caved in.

Ellis spent years telling the market that Transpacific didn’t get a ‘bargain’ ...plenty of criticism about the price obtained and it always came across as Ellis justifying what they did

Balance might have better memory than me.

[Balance]

If I remember correctly the takeover of Waste Management was long drawn out affair before Ellis (and the Board) caved in.

Ellis spent years telling the market that Transpacific didn’t get a ‘bargain’ ...plenty of criticism about the price obtained and it always came across as Ellis justifying what they did

Balance might have better memory than me.

Gee - really taxing the memory bank here, W69!

All I can recall (from my own perspective) was selling out on the market at close to the takeover price, while the battle raged between institutional shareholders who wanted a proper takeover deal (cash & 100% takeout at a higher price) than the scrip (Transpacific) and scheme of arrangement 'merger'.

One of the advantages of being a small shareholder who can easily get out vs the big institutions.

Did not get to have a second bite at Waste Management however, unlike Metlife here.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=10382330

[Balance]

NBR mentions that the Chairman is well aware of "talk" of an extraordinary meeting to remove directors. People can decide for themselves whether that's evidence per se or not.

Seems to me MET have approached EQT seeking a deal and have been lowballed with a heavily revised offer which MET have rejected.
Where it goes from here is anyone's guess !

Having observed how 'leaks' find their way into the AFR and other newspapers over the decades, I believe it will be EQT (refer 1 below) who has the real motivation to leak the news that MET directors have rejected their revised (obviously lower) offer.

This ties in with the NBR also separately reported that institutional shareholders (refer 2 below) are agitating for an EGM to get the directors to accept the revised offer.

Observations:

1. EQT or its agent was most likely the one to leak the news that they had pulled the previous offer which caused the sp to crater.

2. MET directors have the support* of the institutions to take EQT to court to seek specific performance of the takeover offer by EQT. Unless there is a revised offer acceptable to the institutions, there is no reason for the institutions to agitate for the directors to be removed.

------------------------------------- GAME ON! -----------------------------------------------------

* Shareholders support directors taking EQT to court : https://www.nzx.com/announcements/353446

[moimoi]

Exactly..

And difficult to imagine that the pensions funds and institutional investors providing the funding to EQT funds are doing so to fund risky and expensive legal campaigns down in the South Pacific...

Settlement beckons...

[Balance]

Exactly..

And difficult to imagine that the pensions funds and institutional investors providing the funding to EQT funds are doing so to fund risky and expensive legal campaigns down in the South Pacific...

Settlement beckons...

So next question : What would be an acceptable offer to the institutional shareholders?

A figure of $6 has been put out there (refer The Australian) which could have only come from EQT.

For the hedge funds who bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of MET shares as an arbitrage play (gone wrong), $6 would be perfectly acceptable as they need liquidity to get out of their huge position. Hence, the agitation once they are made aware of the revised offer imo.

For other shareholders however, EQT's revised offer suggests EQT know they are on the back foot in the litigation and there could be serious reputational as well as financial damage if they lose.

Well, the adage that the first offer is never the last and final offer applies - so look for some sort of amicable settlement at around $6.30 to $6.50?

[limmy]

If EQT loses, in the event of a court case, wouldn't they have to pay some form of penalty ?
i.e. Pay the $7 per share + compensation.
Will we, as shareholders get some benefits from this compensation ?

[Balance]

If EQT loses, in the event of a court case, wouldn't they have to pay some form of penalty ?
i.e. Pay the $7 per share + compensation.
Will we, as shareholders get some benefits from this compensation ?

If there is any compensation, shareholders would of course get the benefit - via a special dividend for eg.

Doubt vey much we will see this playing out in the court now.

The leaks coming out say that the two parties (but especially EQT) are moving towards a settlement.

[Balance]

As an aside, MET should be getting ready to make an announcement about what’s happening behind the scenes in the interest of continuous disclosure.

If history is any guide however, the directors are likely to keep quiet and we will probably only get an update when a deal is announced?

So - be there or miss out!