CapitaMalls Asia

the Offeror and its Concert Parties owned, controlled or have agreed to acquire an
aggregate of 3,442,068,868 Shares6
, representing approximately 88.3% of the issued
share capital of CMA.

(30-05-2014, 08:09 PM)lonewolf Wrote:

(28-05-2014, 07:45 PM)MINX Wrote: You can find it at TheFinance.sg

OK. I found the post; and in case anyone is interested:

Case Studies of Unsuccessful Privatisations

As I suspected, the sample size was quite small. And it was focused on unsuccessful privatisation as opposed to dissenting shareholders of an unlisted company, which was what I was thinking about when I saw yr initial post.

thanks for digging out the link lonewolf!

a current example would be olam. after the offer of 2.23 closed, the share price traded below 2.23 for a few days.

however, it has traded around 2.30 for the past 2 days, with decent volume of almost 20 million last fri.

while olam is in a different sector from CMA, we could potentially use this as a reference.

(02-06-2014, 08:19 AM)investor2014 Wrote: the Offeror and its Concert Parties owned, controlled or have agreed to acquire an
aggregate of 3,442,068,868 Shares6
, representing approximately 88.3% of the issued
share capital of CMA.

anyway, it seems like almost reaching 90% already.

Dealing Disclosure 02 Jun

What Capland has = 3,457,735,191 (88.7%)
What CapLand need to delist = 50,190,581

I wont be surprised if the deadline is extended. I dun think Capland will give up just be being under 1% short of delisting. Even if they managed 90% by deadline, its good to reduce the no of dissenting shareholders. I'm tempted to become one

(03-06-2014, 09:39 AM)lonewolf Wrote: Dealing Disclosure 02 Jun

What Capland has = 3,457,735,191 (88.7%)
What CapLand need to delist = 50,190,581

I wont be surprised if the deadline is extended. I dun think Capland will give up just be being under 1% short of delisting. Even if they managed 90% by deadline, its good to reduce the no of dissenting shareholders. I'm tempted to become one

hi lonewolf,

if you do become a dissenting shareholder in a delisted company, the main issue is that you will not be able to sell your shares easily right?

(03-06-2014, 10:01 AM)investor2014 Wrote:

(03-06-2014, 09:39 AM)lonewolf Wrote: Dealing Disclosure 02 Jun

What Capland has = 3,457,735,191 (88.7%)
What CapLand need to delist = 50,190,581

I wont be surprised if the deadline is extended. I dun think Capland will give up just be being under 1% short of delisting. Even if they managed 90% by deadline, its good to reduce the no of dissenting shareholders. I'm tempted to become one

hi lonewolf,

if you do become a dissenting shareholder in a delisted company, the main issue is that you will not be able to sell your shares easily right?

Dissenting shareholders will be forced to sale, if the compulsory acquisition triggered.

Lonewolf, I recall you also caught in ITG GO, right? You have already experienced as dissenting shareholder then, right?

(not vested)

(03-06-2014, 10:51 AM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(03-06-2014, 10:01 AM)investor2014 Wrote:

(03-06-2014, 09:39 AM)lonewolf Wrote: Dealing Disclosure 02 Jun

What Capland has = 3,457,735,191 (88.7%)
What CapLand need to delist = 50,190,581

I wont be surprised if the deadline is extended. I dun think Capland will give up just be being under 1% short of delisting. Even if they managed 90% by deadline, its good to reduce the no of dissenting shareholders. I'm tempted to become one

hi lonewolf,

if you do become a dissenting shareholder in a delisted company, the main issue is that you will not be able to sell your shares easily right?

Dissenting shareholders will be forced to sale, if the compulsory acquisition triggered.

Lonewolf, I recall you also caught in ITG GO, right? You have already experienced as dissenting shareholder then, right?

(not vested)

thanks cityfarmer for your reply.

i was actually asking if there is no compulsory acquisition, what are the cons in being a shareholder of a delisted company?

(03-06-2014, 10:01 AM)investor2014 Wrote: hi lonewolf,

if you do become a dissenting shareholder in a delisted company, the main issue is that you will not be able to sell your shares easily right?

Yes of cos.

(03-06-2014, 10:51 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: Dissenting shareholders will be forced to sale, if the compulsory acquisition triggered.

Lonewolf, I recall you also caught in ITG GO, right? You have already experienced as dissenting shareholder then, right?

(not vested)

I doubt CapLand will reach the compulsory acquisition level. They need to reach 96.5% for that to happen or another 304,592,581
share more.

I accepted ITG when it went over 90%. In any case, I wasn't totally happy with the Goh brothers management so I was happy to just move on.

In the case of CMA, I'm just toying with the idea of being a dissenting shareholder for the experience. But common sense will probably prevail in the end and I'll probably accept if 90% is reached.

thanks lonewolf.

PUBLISHED JUNE 03, 2014
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Review rules on takeovers and privatisations
PRINT |EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
MICHAEL Dee has written two very good analyses on the recent takeover offer for CapitaMalls Asia (CMA) by Capitaland (CL): "CMA shareholders should stand their ground against 'fair offer'" in BT of April 22 and "Offer for CMA is still undervalued" in BT of May 29. All his points are very pertinent and can be equally applied to other recent takeover attempts, including that of LCD Global Investments (LCD) by RDL Investments (RDL).
It is the minorities who are greatly impacted by all these takeover attempts, and they have to protect their own interests. They have to let their voices be heard and not leave it to others to speak up for their rights. They should be wary of the advice of the "independent directors" who invariably follow the advice of the "independent financial advisors" (IFA), the independence of which may need to be questioned.
The Securities Investors Association (Singapore) (SIAS), being the watchdog for retail investors, should fight for a higher offer price for them. It should maintain a neutral stand and not advise retail investors to either accept or reject a takeover offer. Besides, SIAS does not hold a financial advisor licence, and is in no position to offer financial advice.
The same "conflict of interest" issue cited by Mr Dee in CL's takeover for CMA also resurfaces in RDL's takeover of LCD, as the two major shareholders of RDL are also majority shareholders of LCD. This is also manifested in other recent takeover attempts of other listed companies