takeover talk..., page-3

According to Brian Frith is today's Australian, "the simple fact is that retail shareholders own 70%". Really? With QIC,Capital,MGQ,ASI & BTRL adding up to 55% I think the Mum & Dad element is decreasing fast. I suspect the concern for the promoters is less over the 75% resolutions than the 50% ones, given that the latter would still cause chaos,and also over the ever decreasing chance that any sensible independent investor is likely to write a cheque for the second instalment under present volatile circumstances, no matter how well inclined they are to the success of the project. The suspension of trading in BCSCB could be seen as a thinly veiled attempt by BCS to hide the immediate loss of value of some or all of the second $1 payment until after the instalment date, and the continuation of the "opt out" rather than "opt in" DRP (thus issuing a shed load more of liability bearing units) is frankly incredible after the previous experience.
Trying to be objective, I don't actually see why BCS and its allies need to do any more than offer to buy the currently outstanding on market $0.001 shares, thereby giving any retail shareholder the chance to exit and securing a 50.1% position (presumably this could be structured to avoid any party having to make an immediate full takeover). I've never quite understood what ASI & BTRL are up to but don't see why BCS need do more than wait for both to default (as presumably they will under any scenario). If the Mums & Dad's are out of the picture, the press & public aren't going to give a hoot about BCS calling default on ASI & BTRL; one way or another, it seems to me that BCS & the underwriters are going to get those shares dumped back on them so what's the point in buying?