MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[bull....]

Or you could just read past the statement of facts and into Metlifecares defence to already see their defence against such clauses and claims listed there in detail and with references to relevant laws and clauses.

of course , but thats just one side of the argument. apvg will have just as many law case points etc as metlife do.
I see metlife can spend millions in court for $7/share or if they back down can argue over the break fee of 15 million to try and get something

[bottomfeeder]

The issues raised by APVG, are not substantive enough to warrant cancellation.

[bull....]

The issues raised by APVG, are not substantive enough to warrant cancellation.

then why is the price 4.35 and not 6.80 if its so clear cut. anyway im no legal guru but thats my guesses from market experience

[winner69]

I got called up for a jury once - said in a loud voice he's guilty as sin ...and got sent home

He was guilty as sin but at least I didn't have to sit through three days to find out

Should I talk to the judge - APVG guilty as sin

[dobby41]

Seems that the bush lawyers are out in force.

[Beagle]

I got called up for a jury once - said in a loud voice he's guilty as sin ...and got sent home

He was guilty as sin but at least I didn't have to sit through three days to find out

Should I talk to the judge - APVG guilty as sin

I know I spend too much time watching CNBC but...be that as it may the subject of MAC clauses came up a couple of days ago and one expert opined that these have traditionally been clauses to protect against material adverse changes specific to the target company. He went on to suggest that if Zoom were the target company would they be able to cancel any takeover deal on behalf of their shareholders because the value of their shares had gone up due to Covid 19 ? An interesting question and perspective I thought...

Anyway said expert when on that it all depends upon the wording of the agreement. Pretty clear that the agreement was written up such that any change that comes about by a change in general economic conditions is excluded. Covid 19 was the catalyst for the change in economic conditions but as economic conditions changes are excluded and it was clear both parties wrote it up that they should be excluded then prima facie risk appears to lay with the acquirer. Hope the court see it that way...but there appears to be nothing factored into the share price that suggests they might which really sheets me back to the arbitrage boys simply selling down...

Opportunity knocks but as is always the case, not without some risk.

[TFA]

Good post. Let's face it, AVG pulled the plug because the market tanked due to extreme fear because of Covid-19. They've tried to engineer some arguments to support this but they look extremely weak. Even if they were successful in convincing the court that the event has been triggered, they have no evidence to substantiate the assets or income drop so.
The interesting thing is that the market dropped 25% causing them to want to bail, however by 8 April when they officially announced they were pulling out the market had already recouped some ground (still down around 10% from 19 December when they agreed to $7), however the market has continued to recover and is now only off 5% from December 19.
NZ has (touch wood) beaten the virus in 49 days, the old folks haven't been wiped out, the triggers that caused AVG to pull the plug are being minimised by the day. Their chances of winning in court look slim and their alternative position isn't looking so bad now. Highly likely that a deal will proceed imho

A further interesting point is by trying to reneg and withdrawing the foreign investment application could make them complicit in the deal falling over if the OIO deemed them not be of good character

[bottomfeeder]

Seems that the bush lawyers are out in force.

Some bush lawyers are from the bush, others have some experience in these matters. Shouldn't generalise.

[jonu]

Apologies if this has already been covered...but is it known who the Investors are in the Equity Commitment Letter? Could those "Investors" be playing the market in the meantime?

Well the third time I'm asking this question. Either you all are too polite to call me an idiot or nobody knows. A lot of "expert" legal advice in the meantime.

[winner69]

Well the third time I'm asking this question. Either you all are too polite to call me an idiot or nobody knows. A lot of "expert" legal advice in the meantime.

APVG (that newly incorporated company with no assets we talked about) made the offer - EQT Infrastructure Fund IV own the holding company of APVG - that fund has 'investors' who were apparently prepared to pump more cash into the EQT fund to fund the acquisition.

those 'investors' probably unknown but I doubt if they are 'playing' the market

What makes you think they are playing the market