Thanks Pitt, I had thought the 75% approval only applied to current significant holdings who already held a position above the 20% of total shares on issue and then upon hitting the 90% level, this would trigger the compulsory sale of remaining holders? However has been a long while since I've held something that has been under offer, so 75% acceptance sounds right.
Looking at the significant holders the top 5 hold approx 45% of the company, so will only take a couple of them voting against, to force ICU to sweeten their deal. Alternatively a competing offer (still hoping, albeit unlikely, that another suitor comes out of the woodwork.)
Mrsb, this is not intended to come off as a dig, just an honest question: If you believe MLA's business/margins & cash-flow to be in such great peril (and have done for sometime, as this has been known since February), why haven't you sold out already ?
Interesting the spin/ wording on this from the original Feb 10th update, worded like it was MLA's :
"Medical Australia's Chief Executive Officer, Mr Darryl Ellis, commented: "For some time we have been implementing a more aggressive strategy to scale up sales of MLA's own branded products, to meet the demands of customers, As well, we have been changing our product mix by progressively reducing our exposure to OEM contracts, having recognised the fragility of this business"
I think the OEM piece among other excuses (including lack of scale and M&A opportunities) seem to be being used as factors to influence acceptance of the proposal, rather than these actually being large issues IMO. I think Darryl has done a pretty good job in righting the ship, but with little financial motivation in terms of personal shareholding, I wonder whether the opportunity to gain a role in the Australian ICU operation might possibly be the name of the game?
