Amit on takeover statement

[Bigdave]

Oh right gotcha.

Cheers

[moon_safari]

Why doesn't he increase his share then?

Because maybe the belive the new owners are perfect for us?
IMO these are buyers who came in for the club but flavios money and Italian investigation on him haulted it.
at the time every one was very excited about these people really think it's them

[andythefish]

So you think it's Mallaya then Moon?

[singingranger]

I've been away all week so have missed this story.
I did hear it was ####s, is this not the case and I am assuming the sale would be based on promotion?

[robloft]

Er - all we have heard from the other stakeholders is they will not sell theirs. How that equates happy is one of many things that is puzzling me at the moment.

And P.S you have to do no such thing (as offer to buy 100%) at any stage let alone talks with the major shareholding.

Check you facts Stanley there certainly is legislation in the companies act which makes you have to offer to buy minority shares at some stage when you stake goes above a certain amount so to say at no stage must you offer to but out other shareholders is wrong !

[2touch]

Check you facts Stanley there certainly is legislation in the companies act which makes you have to offer to buy minority shares at some stage when you stake goes above a certain amount so to say at no stage must you offer to but out other shareholders is wrong !

I have heard of this before somewhere though. Weren't they saying that Usmanov would have to make an offer for the entire company (Arsenal), if his stake increased further?

[2touch]

In the United Kingdom
Takeovers in the UK (meaning acquisitions of public companies only) are governed by the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, also known as the "City Code" or "Takeover Code". The rules for a takeover, can be found what is primarily known as 'The Blue Book'. The Code used to be a non-statutory set of rules that was controlled by City institutions on a theoretically voluntary basis. However, as a breach of the Code brought such reputational damage and the possibility of exclusion from City services run by those institutions, it was regarded as binding. In 2006 the Code was put onto a statutory footing as part of the UK's compliance with the European Takeover Directive (2004/25/EC) [1].
The Code requires that all shareholders in a company should be treated equally. It regulates when and what information companies must and cannot release publicly in relation to the bid, sets timetables for certain aspects of the bid, and sets minimum bid levels following a previous purchase of shares.
In particular:
a shareholder must make an offer when its shareholding, including that of parties acting in concert (a "concert party"), reaches 30% of the target;
information relating to the bid must not be released except by announcements regulated by the Code;
the bidder must make an announcement if rumour or speculation have affected a company's share price;
the level of the offer must not be less than any price paid by the bidder in the three months before the announcement of a firm intention to make an offer;
if shares are bought during the offer period at a price higher than the offer price, the offer must be increased to that price;
The Rules Governing the Substantial Acquisition of Shares, which used to accompany the Code and which regulated the announcement of certain levels of shareholdings, have now been abolished, though similar provisions still exist in the Companies Act 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover

[2touch]

Check you facts Stanley there certainly is legislation in the companies act which makes you have to offer to buy minority shares at some stage when you stake goes above a certain amount so to say at no stage must you offer to but out other shareholders is wrong !

Covered by stock exchange rules I think.

[stanley75]

Check you facts Stanley there certainly is legislation in the companies act which makes you have to offer to buy minority shares at some stage when you stake goes above a certain amount so to say at no stage must you offer to but out other shareholders is wrong !

This and a few other comments on on here are starting to mix things up. You are talking here about obligations on bidders not vendors and you do not have to buy all shares you have to make an offer without prejudice which others can opt to take. This doesn't seem at all relevant here. We were talking about the reasons for the announcement I thought. And the point is I do not believe there is a legal reason for it (it doesn't relate to a bid of any sort). I explained earlier what the more likely possible reasons were. In short, it is most likely the remaining shareholders wanting to be clear they are not part of the negotiations and/or (if you like you conspiracies) bernie putting the for sale sign up. The only worthier reasons I can imagine it might have been done were for general openness (the other shareholders may have threatened to blow the gaff if he didn't declare in fact) or to help with the speed they want to carry the next part through with (as this will count a little as forewarning).

[qprdad]

Of course you have to involve other Directors if you are selling 67% of the business.

In fact if you purchase more that 29.5% you have to make an offer to all shareholders - and this gives the clue that it is a "friendly" takeover and the other directors are happy with the situation.

No you don't; this only applies to companies quoted on a stock exchange.

[qprdad]

In the United Kingdom
Takeovers in the UK (meaning acquisitions of public companies only) are governed by the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, also known as the "City Code" or "Takeover Code". The rules for a takeover, can be found what is primarily known as 'The Blue Book'. The Code used to be a non-statutory set of rules that was controlled by City institutions on a theoretically voluntary basis. However, as a breach of the Code brought such reputational damage and the possibility of exclusion from City services run by those institutions, it was regarded as binding. In 2006 the Code was put onto a statutory footing as part of the UK's compliance with the European Takeover Directive (2004/25/EC) [1].
The Code requires that all shareholders in a company should be treated equally. It regulates when and what information companies must and cannot release publicly in relation to the bid, sets timetables for certain aspects of the bid, and sets minimum bid levels following a previous purchase of shares.
In particular:
a shareholder must make an offer when its shareholding, including that of parties acting in concert (a "concert party"), reaches 30% of the target;
information relating to the bid must not be released except by announcements regulated by the Code;
the bidder must make an announcement if rumour or speculation have affected a company's share price;
the level of the offer must not be less than any price paid by the bidder in the three months before the announcement of a firm intention to make an offer;
if shares are bought during the offer period at a price higher than the offer price, the offer must be increased to that price;
The Rules Governing the Substantial Acquisition of Shares, which used to accompany the Code and which regulated the announcement of certain levels of shareholdings, have now been abolished, though similar provisions still exist in the Companies Act 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover

2touch..... QPR Holdings Plc is not quoted on the stock exchange - these rules do not apply. Oh, and the Companies Act 1985 has been superceeded by the CA 2006!

[MYU]

Because maybe the belive the new owners are perfect for us?
IMO these are buyers who came in for the club but flavios money and Italian investigation on him haulted it.
at the time every one was very excited about these people really think it's them

I to think it's him and our board would become very strong if this story is true.