+- ShareholdersUnite Forums (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Companies (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: InterOil Forum (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Capial group says Yes (/showthread.php?tid=10629)
Pages:
1
2
Capial group says Yes - ioc.aussie - 06-05-2016
Oil Search's $US2.2 billion (A$3 billion)-plus takeover deal for InterOil has received a boost with its Papua New Guinea rival confident it has sufficient investor backing for the deal to proceed.
InterOil management, led by chief executive Michael Hession, have held meetings with key investors in the US in recent days as part of a roadshow to sell the merits of the deal.
Sources said Capital Group, which owns more than 11 per cent of InterOil stock, has given its backing to the buyout ahead of two critical shareholder votes on the transaction.
It is understood Mr Hession is now confident of getting the deal over the line with fund managers supportive of the benefits of the tie-up with Oil Search.
Advertisement
InterOil's former boss, Phil Mulacek, who owns nearly 6 per cent of the company has blasted the deal for undervaluing the company.
Mr Mulacek has started legal action to postpone shareholder meetings arguing investors were being asked to vote on board nominees before they had full disclosure on the Oil Search deal.
He has also criticised the terms of the Oil Search deal, saying it significantly undervalues the company's large Elk-Antelope gas resource in PNG's Gulf Province and its other discoveries.
A general meeting will be held in New York on June 14 to vote on board directors including five directors put forward by Mr Mulacek who are not endorsed by the board.
InterOil shareholders will then vote on the Oil Search deal in late July, with two-thirds of votes cast needing to be in favour for it to proceed. Even if the board is spilt on June 14, the vote must proceed.
"Mulacek may drag another 5 per cent of shareholders out against the deal but the numbers are still very convincing on the transaction," said a source close to the takeover.
Influential proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services sided with the board and against Mr Mulacek arguing the absence of a better offer and InterOil's limited funding capacity meant the risks in voting down the transaction could not be justified.
Other proxy advisers, including Egan Jones and Glass Lewis & Co, have also recommended investors vote for InterOil's director nominees and reject Mr Mulacek's resolutions.
"We believe the recently announced transaction with Oil Search is generally attractive for InterOil shareholders and we are concerned the dissident would seek to interfere with the terms of this transaction in a manner that may place it at risk," Glass Lewis said in its report.
InterOil pointed to the proxy recommendations to urge shareholders to support the current board.
"Glass Lewis – along with ISS and Egan Jones - recognises that since Mr Mulacek's departure from the corporation, the board and management team have transformed InterOil by taking decisive action to monetise the value of the corporation's assets, including through executing favourable transactions," InterOil said in a statement over the weekend.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/interoil-wins-support-for-oil-search-deal-20160605-gpbxpe.html#ixzz4Ahhtkhuu
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
RE: Capial group says Yes - Li'loilady - 06-05-2016
Wells Fargo???
RE: Capial group says Yes - Stavros - 06-05-2016
Another day, another lie.
Capital Group would never commit to a vote on the deal without first knowing details, including the OSH/IPI Certification number, and details of the MOU between OSH/TOTAL
SO .... If Capital Group was given those details, then YET AGAIN we will be seeing selective dissemination of Material Information.
Unethical as it were, Snagglepus
If they were not given that information, then they cannot yet decide how they will vote.
I will be contacting the Capital Group Fund Managers to find out the real deal.
I suggest others also consider doing so
RE: Capial group says Yes - Libtardius Maximus - 06-06-2016
Ok. so the writer of this story Mr. Perry Williams is rather crafty with this article. By reading this he has more than one source. Here are the relevant sentences.
"Sources said Capital Group, which owns more than 11 per cent of InterOil stock, has given its backing to the buyout ahead of two critical shareholder votes on the transaction."
"Mulacek may drag another 5 per cent of shareholders out against the deal but the numbers are still very convincing on the transaction," said a source close to the takeover.
He has both "sources" and "a source close". Why don't these sources have names? This is nothing by IOC, OSH internal PR machine in action otherwise these sources would have names.
Taking a page from ArtM72 it is time to give Mr. Williams some email to read. Ask him why he didn't name the source(s) and tell our side of the story. I haven't been following this paper but this guy is a new name to me. I'm for popping his shareholders are getting screwed cherry shareholdersunite style by asking why he left the names out.
His email address is at the link of the original post.
I'll go first
RE: Capial group says Yes - Putncalls - 06-06-2016
Is it time to start talking OSH and CVRs?
RE: Capial group says Yes - jft310 - 06-06-2016
This vote is over the BOD and motions . Then we have Phil trying to move shareholders meeting then we have the vote on the deal yes or no
RE: Capital group says Yes - Stavros - 06-06-2016
(06-06-2016, 12:50 AM)Libtardius Maximus Wrote: Ok.so the writer of this story Mr. Perry Williams is rather crafty with this article. By reading this he has more than one source.
Here are the relevant sentences.
"Sources said Capital Group, which owns more than 11 per cent of InterOil stock, has given its backing to the buyout ahead of two critical shareholder votes on the transaction."
"Mulacek may drag another 5 per cent of shareholders out against the deal but the numbers are still very convincing on the transaction," said a source close to the takeover.
He has both "sources" and "a source close".
Why don't these sources have names?
This is nothing but IOC, OSH internal PR machine in action otherwise these sources would have names.
Taking a page from ArtM72 it is time to give Mr. Williams some email to read.
Ask him why he didn't name the source(s) and tell our side of the story.
I haven't been following this paper but this guy is a new name to me.
I'm for popping his shareholders are getting screwed cherry shareholdersunite style by asking why he left the names out.
His email address is at the link of the original post. I'll go first
Mr Maximus:
I had a bit of trouble getting his email address for some reason.
I finally got it: perry.williams@fairfaxmedia.com.au
RE: Capial group says Yes - Palm - 06-06-2016
Mr Williams bio; seems as credible as anyone in the business
https://au.linkedin.com/in/perry-williams-425298a
Lib, since when is it common for reporters to name sources? More often than not in matters like this sources are not named. Pretty normal.
RE: Capial group says Yes - Stavros - 06-06-2016
In many MANY reputable articles, the author will call the people involved and get direct quotes that can be attributed to the subject.
For example, Mr Williams said "It is understood Mr Hession is now confident of getting the deal over the line with fund managers supportive of the benefits of the tie-up with Oil Search."
To be credible, he should have called Dr Hession and asked for a direct quote. HE DIDN'T.
WHY NOT???
RE: Capial group says Yes - katytrader - 06-06-2016
'Stavros' pid='71518' datel Wrote:In many MANY reputable articles, the author will call the people involved and get direct quotes that can be attributed to the subject. For example, Mr Williams said "It is understood Mr Hession is now confident of getting the deal over the line with fund managers supportive of the benefits of the tie-up with Oil Search." To be credible, he should have called Dr Hession and asked for a direct quote. HE DIDN'T. WHY NOT???
Maybe he did, but Dr Hession was on a plane and couldn't be reached......lol.