I hear what you are saying there's some out clauses/ cost...

I hear what you are saying there's some out clauses/ cost associated.
Probably similar to the amounts wasted on advisors this time and previous takeover "defences".
These guys really know how to piss a lot of money up against the wall.
The reason they call it binding though is that directors want it to go through.
The implementation agreement requires shareholder approval, that's where the power lies in this situation.
The rest is BS to convince us it isn't so, large shareholders are most important but I encourage all shareholders to vote.
The reason we have so many venal (self serving) managements (like those at AWE) is because shareholders don't demonstrate to them who wears the pants.
As Ben Graham said "the most docile and apathetic animal in captivity", he is still 100% correct on that point. It's true as long as people carry on not giving a stuff until the company goes broke like SGH and ARI.
GLTA