MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[Beagle]

on reading the article they sound pretty legitimate concerns to me

Wow...he owns a whole 1000 shares. That's "impressive" and bound to get the High Court justice's attention. More than 90% of shareholders voted for it, which as you know is above the threshold of the takeovers code for compulsory acquisition.
Its time to euthanize this poorly managed and directed dog of a company and put shareholders out of their misery.

[oldtech]

Wow...he owns a whole 1000 shares. That's "impressive" and bound to get the High Court justice's attention.

Gee, even I had more than that when I was holding, and I assure you I'm certainly no big-scale investor!

[Bjauck]

Wow...he owns a whole 1000 shares. That's "impressive" and bound to get the High Court justice's attention. More than 90% of shareholders voted for it, which as you know is above the threshold of the takeovers code for compulsory acquisition.
Its time to euthanize this poorly managed and directed dog of a company and put shareholders out of their misery.

If there have been breaches, does a shareholder have a right to redress irrespective of how many shares they own?

1000 MET shares may be cappuccino money for some but a material amount for others.

[Beagle]

If there have been breaches, does a shareholder have a right to redress irrespective of how many shares they own?

1000 MET shares may be cappuccino money for some but a material amount for others.

Without pretending to be a commercial lawyer from best recollection with the basic commercial law training that goes with a commerce degree, if I recall correctly you will find that courts generally look at the materiality of any alleged breech in terms of the quantum of money as it affects the objecting party.

I won't get into what's coffee money for some and not for others other than to say if this was a major institution with millions of shares the court might take a different approach.

Sure there are important issues to consider but the court is bound to also consider that a $1.27 Billion deal in which more than 90% of shareholders voted for it is being asked to be derailed by a shareholder owning just 1000 shares. The court will also be considering that there has already been two independent valuations by recognised experts in their field and that the scheme implementation agreement proposed settlement price is within the valuation ranges of both of those experts.

The High court judges are entitled to rely on the expertise of those experts and will probably dismiss the objection in my opinion and ratify the finalization of the scheme implementation agreement.

[winner69]

Probably his way of giving the fund managers the fingers for being so useless

But they would never listen ....ego driven and up themselves ....happy as collecting exorbitant management fees no matter what

And we think highly of most of them ...sad industry really

[Bjauck]

…
The High court judges are entitled to rely on the expertise of those experts and will probably dismiss the objection in my opinion and ratify the finalization of the scheme implementation agreement.

If they decide breaches had occurred, maybe the court will take into account whether a reasonable shareholder would have accepted the deal had they been aware that breaches had occurred.

[Beagle]

If they decide breaches had occurred, maybe the court will take into account whether a reasonable shareholder would have accepted the deal had they been aware that breaches had occurred.

Well yes that's right they could but...
What you're suggesting is that a small shareholder who owns 1,000 shares knows more about the correct procedures than the two independent experts who have prepared their reports on the SIA.
You're also suggesting that the High Court judges are in a position (yes they're extremely intelligent about the law), to decide that the two independent valuers were fundamentally erroneous in their valuation methodology. (Keep in mind judges are not independent expert valuers)

Ask yourself how plausible the above might be...and then keep in mind the SIA had overwhelming support from shareholders and has OIO approval.

David and Goliath battle if ever there was one. The objector is going to need a miracle like David got in the Bible.

[peat]

Wow...he owns a whole 1000 shares. That's "impressive" and bound to get the High Court justice's attention. More than 90% of shareholders voted for it, which as you know is above the threshold of the takeovers code for compulsory acquisition.
Its time to euthanize this poorly managed and directed dog of a company and put shareholders out of their misery.

he had owned 50k - sold out like we all did - but whatever ,the law shouldn't look at materiality only because what he's trying to say and you know it is true is that 90% of the shareholders were duped because a distorted view of the facts was presented without those distortions being declared. not that many people are clever enough as a hungry beagle to see through these things. and even those who did, and we dont know how many of them there are, still sold because covid gloom.

Anyway I'm just talkin my book for the hell of it .... it keeps my whistle wet on this short

[Beagle]

I think the fact that he used to own 50K shares and has sold 49K under $6 effectively amounts to him shooting himself in the foot.
The court is likely to ask, if you thought they were worth more than $6 why did you sell the vast bulk of your shares at under $6 ?
Its one thing to make a principled stand and quite another to take an objectors approach just for the sake of it.
With his approach, its quite clear he's trying to delay the SIA agreement and manipulate the share price down again to milk this tired old female dog one more time.
I think the court will see right through his transparent attempt at profiteering and his objection will be dismissed out of hand.

[Beagle]

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/361404

He just bought the shares in Sept 2020 to be obstructive.

What a "b"anker.