MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[jonu]

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

Thanks for the response winner.

I don't "think" they are playing the market, but it seems to me to be possible. Unknown large players who may or may not have knowledge of whether APVG intend to settle out of Court at a lower purchase price or are really determined to walk away all together.

[Beagle]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12332666 Nothing new here, just what the Herald reported.

[Cyclical]

2. APVG withdrew their OIO application on 3/5/20.

That kinda reeks of arrogance doesn't it? Unless the process dictates they have no option but to pull it anyway...ie it can't just go on hold in the interim.

[Beagle]

That kinda reeks of arrogance doesn't it? Unless the process dictates they have no option but to pull it anyway...ie it can't just go on hold in the interim.

Quite possibly an actionable event in its own right in terms of MET seeking damages as APVG knew full well at the time they withdrew their application that MET were legally contesting their right to cancel the agreement. This sort of action would certainly add imputes to MET's claim that APVG have not been acting in good faith.
I think this is a clear sign that this is going to get ugly.

[winner69]

APVG worried they might fail the ‘good character’ test

[Cyclical]

APVG worried they might fail the ‘good character’ test

No doubt they'd be livered.

EQT clearly aren't concerned about their own reputation. I guess they think no one's going to notice the trail of sh1t they leave down in this part of the world...probably a fair assumption.

[tommy_d]

this is what i imagine the court decision will come down to. What are views on MET being down 30% over the three month period and thus eligible for the wage subsidy? my guess, they'll be paying it back...

APVG is also concerned that Metlifecare has, without approval and in breach of the SIA, applied for and taken a wage subsidy in respect of entities that are not reasonably likely to be entitled to the wage subsidy, which is a material arrangement that creates reputational and repayment risks for Metlifecare. Those unauthorised actions are material to Metlifecare and entitle APVG to terminate the SIA.

[Beagle]

They only have to prove income was down 30% for one month to be eligible for the subsidy. Sales of new units and resales of same stopped during lockdown level 4.

[Balance]

They only have to prove income was down 30% for one month to be eligible for the subsidy. Sales of new units and resales of same stopped during lockdown level 4.

As a contact of mine said, claim first - can always repay later if things are ok. Be silly not to claim if you can. It’s a $15 billion giveaway!

[Longhaul]

As a contact of mine said, claim first - can always repay later if things are ok. Be silly not to claim if you can. It’s a $15 billion giveaway!

It was such a stretch to claim that MET's application for the subsidy was a reputational risk. If somehow, miraculously they didn't have a fall in revenue of 30% for the month, then they just pay it back and look like the good guy!