Ann: Trading Halt, page-6

Its just speculation but I find it interesting that the thrust of the article in The Australian was that if the $150M offer for 49% of the EKJV made by NST for TBR and RND's share of the EKJV is "fair and reasonable" according to Bill Beaument then it must follow that a similar derisory offer for NST's 51% of the EKJV is also fair and resonable.

This is a position that you and several others alluded to a while ago, and would have been one of the many viable options that Anton Billis could have taken. But as you say - the management of TBR and Rand seem to have chosen a different approach in response to the Takeovers Panel by throwing money out the door as dividends, and then signing up for a rubbish project in the Phillipines which almost seems deliberately value destructive (or is it a clumsy back-door way to build some sort of blocking stake?). Despite several legal avenues being open to them and other corporate responses - such as trying to attract another alternative bidder for their share on the EKJV which would force NST to make a nore reasonable offer, this is what the article by Garvey is trying to imply near the end as some sort of bidding war for control of the EKJV - which is the real asset/prize in this story.

I still can't see what their long term strategy is in relation to the very delayed and contentious Takeover Panel decision, and as a result of that decision, the opportunistic low ball offer by NST. I guess the issue is complicated by NST owning shares in RND and TBR.

The only clear motivation in all of this is the opportunistic low ball offer by Bill Beament and NST - they obviously want the remaining share of the EKJV for the lowest possible price.