Forterra Trust (formerly: Treasury China Trust)

[specuvestor]

So no other insti or >5% shareholder declared they sold?

[Boon]

So no other insti or >5% shareholder declared they sold?

PAG declared.
Credit Suisse Group declared.
Only left APG (about 8.5% stake) yet to declare.

[opmi]

APG must have sold. If not, the no free float suspension notice will be out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki

[specuvestor]

Thank you all for the update.
I will divert @ $2.25

since it is unconditional offer now, can get money back faster than conditional offer. if accept offer.

No need to pay brokers comm...unless you need to feed your brokers...

Pretty strange why people selling 17m shares a day when this stock is supposed to be tightly held according to the AR.

Unless of course they are stockist on behalf of the buyer... like what Ackman did with Allergan but in much larger scale

I would think NF should be happy to keep FT as a >50% owned listed ATM.

I am sure that we will see some disclosure of changes in share ownership by some of the major shareholders in the next few days (just as we have now seen the disclosure of PAG's sale). What Ackman did was different. He bought shares, in the market, up to the 10% limit that a financial investor is allowed to without disclosure. Then he disclosed that he was acting in concert with Valeant. If any of the major shareholders of Forterra are acting in concert with Nan Fung, they would have had to disclose this in the offer documents...

Not sure if you understand what I'm trying to say.

Major institutional holders don't sell in drip and draps in a GO which is why forumers can guess who are the sellers. They cross out trades in off-market to reduce comm while receiving cash in T+3 rather than 6 weeks later.

Stockists are supposed to be "invisible" and even CDP could only see the custodian bank as counterparty. Same logic why SLS treat Nets sale and cash sale differently (if you get my drift) Acting-in-concert is a heavy legal obligation, and if the insti funds are involved, they will surely have to declare. See Serial System Eddie Chng case or last year's 3 kings penny stock case

What Ackman done is no different from the stockists in principle, which is why the lawsuit. The difference is the size and the "transparency" because he is insti. Ackman is winning on the legality

I could be wrong. Let's see who the 200+ shareholders are selling such amounts.

So no other insti or >5% shareholder declared they sold?

PAG declared.
Credit Suisse Group declared.
Only left APG (about 8.5% stake) yet to declare.

Thanks Boon I was referring to if there were any declaration post the discussions last week. I think the stockists has done their job.

Even at 87% acceptance IMHO I think it is not NF desire to delist. That's why stock is now below 225. Let's see.

[cloud_soon]

NF itself is not listed. With an initial stake of 29+% stake, till 87%, i believe NF will exercise its right to compulsory acquire FT if it cross over 90%

[Vseeker]

NF itself is not listed. With an initial stake of 29+% stake, till 87%, i believe NF will exercise its right to compulsory acquire FT if it cross over 90%

Yes, they already said they WILL if cross 90%

[Vseeker]

as at 03-Dec2014; Already control Aggregate=227,287,793 Units (88.43%)
1) Based on Current IssShrs of 257,019,717 => Only need another 4,029,952 shrs (1.57%) to hit 90% Mandatory Acquisition Level

2) if based on MAX potential IssShrs of 259,529,717 => need another 6,288,952 shrs (2.42%) to hit 90% Mandatory Acquisition Level

but if all the additional 2.51m new Units (if Units Options get excercised) are from friendly parties and will ACCEPT OFFER,
then its down to ONLY 3,778,952 shrs (1.46%) to 90% Mandatory level.

[opmi]

If options held by directors and employees, they will tender. That's why must vote against share Options scheme for those likely privatization targets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki

[safetyfirst]

If options held by directors and employees, they will tender. That's why must vote against share Options scheme for those likely privatization targets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki

hmm very true, this is easily overlooked in most cases

[Boon]

Interesting piece of advice on the offer - "not fair but reasonable"
______________________________________________________

10.
CIMB’S ADVICE ON THE OFFER
After carefully considering all available information and based on our assessment of the financial terms of the Revised Offer, we are of opinion that on balance, the financial terms of the offer are not fair but reasonable.

IDs concur.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Forterra...eID=327335