centro ultimatum..full article from afr, page-23

Hi Eleanor,

CNP has a 51% direct/indirect in CER

So from 2.286b units on issue, 1.12b belongs to non-CNP holders.

As voting is not compulsory, I highly doubt there will be 100% unitholder participation.

Lets assume 95% of non-CNP holders take part in voting, 504m units (1.12b x 95% /2) is the target for the no vote to succeed.

If the hedge funds control a total of 20% of units issued, 456m units are being stamped with a no vote.

Another 48m should ensure the target is reached.

I can provide just under 900k of those votes required.

The contempt we are being shown although not surprising is still nothing short of disgraceful. When we have a CEO who is also the CEO of CNP, one company with substantial equity for its unitholders and the other company at the mercy of its lenders, something has got to give.

We had Super LLC (essentially a risk free investment for CER) taken away from us to appease CNP's secured lenders, dodgy equity hedges, related party loans at favourable rates for CNP et al, but enough is enough.

We have a great company, strong financial position, strong rental growth, great tenants. We are the anchor tenant of Centro. Without CER, CNP would have been dead long ago. Just like an anchor tenant commands lower rent due to its barganing power, CER demands the same respect. If anyone else within the Centro group wants to be part of CER, it must pay the price for doing so just like the small tenants would do to subsidise the lower rent being paid by the anchor tenant.

Bring on the NO vote :-)

Cheers