DOCSLIB.ORG

Takeovers + Schemes Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Takeovers + Schemes Review TAKEOVERS + SCHEMES REVIEW 2020 GTLAW.COM.AU 1 THE GILBERT + TOBIN 2020 TAKEOVERS + SCHEMES REVIEW After a seven-year high in 2018, public M&A involving ASX-listed companies softened in 2019. Some key themes from 2019 were: + 41 transactions valued over $50 million were announced in 2019, down from 49 transactions in 2018. The aggregate transaction value decreased significantly from $48.7 billion in 2018 to approximately $24 billion in 2019. + The healthcare sector made the greatest contribution to announced public M&A by value, followed closely by retail & consumer services and industrial products. + Cashed up private equity firms sought out public M&A targets in a significant way, willing to deploy approximately $10.3 billion on a range of targets in 2019, equivalent to 44% of the aggregate transaction value. + While the number of transactions involving a foreign bidder was broadly the same as recent years, the aggregate deal value attributable to foreign bids fell by more than half from $42 billion in 2018 to $19 billion in 2019. Bidders from North America were the most active, while interest from China was more subdued. + 89% of the total number of announced M&A transactions over $50 million were successful in 2019, despite the slight drop in average final premium paid by bidders. + The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry ignited increased scrutiny and action by corporate regulators. The number of ASIC enforcement actions increased by 20% and the Takeovers Panel heard 38 applications, the second highest in its 20-year history. This Review, which was released on 12 March 2020, examines 2019’s public M&A transactions valued over $50 million and provides our perspective on the trends for Australian public M&A in 2019. We trust you will find this Review to be an interesting read and a useful resource. 2 CONTENTS KEY HIGHLIGHTS 4 1 MARKET ACTIVITY 6 2 SECTOR ANALYSIS 10 3 TRANSACTION STRUCTURES 14 4 FOREIGN BIDDERS 16 5 CONSIDERATION TYPES 24 6 SUCCESS FACTORS 27 7 TRANSACTION TIMING 31 8 IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENTS 34 AND BID CONDITIONS 9 THE REGULATORS 39 2019 PUBLIC M&A TRANSACTIONS 47 OUR APPROACH 49 ABOUT GILBERT + TOBIN 50 RECENT GILBERT + TOBIN TRANSACTIONS 51 ABOUT THE AUTHORS 56 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 62 GILBERT+ TOBIN M&A PARTNERS 63 3 KEY HIGHLIGHTS PRIVATE EQUITY AND RETAIL & CONSUMER TRANSACTION ACTIVITY SUPERANNUATION SERVICES AND HEALTHCARE SOFTENS FUNDS ACTIVE LED THE WAY After a seven-year high for public M&A While overall activity may have been down, Healthcare and retail & consumer services transaction activity in 2018, activity private equity continued to be a significant emerged as the top performing sectors by softened in 2019 with a decrease in both source of activity in 2019, being the transaction value, contributing 27% and 21% the value and number of transactions. 41 proponents in public transactions with a of total transaction value respectively. Retail transactions valued over $50 million were value of approximately $10.3 billion last & consumer services represented 20% of announced, down from 49 transactions in year. This represented 44% of aggregate the total number of transactions, while the 2018, representing a 16.3% reduction. transaction value (up from 28% in 2018) healthcare sector contributed 15% of the and 24% of transaction volume (consistent transaction volume. The aggregate transaction value decreased with 2018). A range of PE houses were significantly in 2019, with approximately The energy and resources sector represented active in public deals in 2019 including $24 billion in transactions announced, 17% by number and 7% by value of public M&A BGH Capital, TPG, KKR, Brookfield, PEP, compared to $48.7 billion in 2018. This transactions in 2019, demonstrating a reduction Quadrant and Adamantem to name a few. is the lowest aggregate transaction value in the contribution from this sector from 2018. since 2013 and a fall of more than 50% from 2018. This was primarily due to a fall in the number large transactions, with only 11 transactions valued at over $500 million announced in 2019, compared to 21 in 2018. Even if one excludes the ~$13 billion unsuccessful offer for APA Group in 2018, it is clear that there was a significantly lower aggregate value of public M&A transactions in 2019. It is difficult to pinpoint the causes for the fall. Perhaps, the federal election in May INTERESTINGLY, 2019 ALSO SAW 2019 had some part in it being a softer year. Other potential reasons include greater SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT OF instability from geopolitical tensions and, on the local front, greater regulatory scrutiny. AUSTRALIAN SUPERANNUATION FUNDS IN PUBLIC M&A FOR THE FIRST TIME In particular, AustralianSuper was a key part of the BGH Capital consortium’s proposals for Healthscope and Navitas and used its significant shareholding to drive the Navitas transaction. QIC Private Capital also made a successful public M&A bid for Pacific Energy. This evidences superannuation funds’ shift from being purely passive investors to active drivers of activity. 4 SUCCESS RATES UP & VALUE OF FOREIGN SCHEMES INCREASINGLY REGULATORS INVESTMENT FALLS THE TRANSACTION UNLEASHED STRUCTURE OF CHOICE Foreign investment activity in 2019 in Friendly / agreed acquisitions by scheme The Financial Services Royal terms of deal volume was broadly the of arrangement are increasingly the Commission seemed to galvanise same as recent years, with 56% of all preferred approach for bidders. public opinion and scrutiny of large public deals over $50 million involving corporates further in 2019. 89% of the total number of announced foreign acquirers compared to 59% in M&A transactions over $50 million Regulators, including ASIC and 2018 and 63% in 2017. were successful in 2019, representing APRA, which were criticised for However, more strikingly, the aggregate a significant increase over 2017 where not taking stronger action sooner deal value attributable to foreign bids only 70% of transactions reached a against misconduct, have stepped up fell by more than half from $42 billion successful outcome and an increase over regulatory action. in 2018 to $19 billion in 2019. 2018 where 80% were successful. ASIC’s controversial ‘why not Despite lower volumes and values, The increased use of schemes of litigate?’ approach has seen the foreign bidders enjoyed higher success arrangement, particularly in high value regulator increase its regulatory rates in 2019 with 95% of foreign bids transactions, is a continuing trend which presence with a 20% increase in the succeeding compared to 76% in 2018. is strengthening. 83% of transactions number of enforcement actions over over $50 million proceeded by way FY 2018-2019. It is also progressing Notably, European bidders who of scheme in 2019. This represents an criminal prosecutions in relation to accounted for 12% of bidders by 18% increase over 2018, where 65% of three different M&A transactions, transaction number in 2018 only transactions over $50 million proceeded including most recently against Ms represented 7% of bidders in 2019. by way of scheme. Jan Cameron for allegedly failing to However, interest from North disclose a substantial shareholding American acquirers increased in Transactions which proceeded by way of interest in Bellamy’s Australia, which 2019, representing 29% of bidders by scheme enjoyed greater success rates in was ultimately taken over by China transaction number, up from 18% in 2019 with 90% of schemes succeeding Mengniu Dairy Company last year. 2018. Asian acquirers represented 17% in 2019, compared to 72% in 2018. of total bidders. The ACCC continues to be activist in its approach to investigating mergers. However, the ACCC also extended its losing streak in merger decisions before THE AGGREGATE DEAL VALUE the courts/tribunals to seven with the ATTRIBUTED TO FOREIGN BIDS Federal Court recently allowing the Vodafone/TPG merger to proceed. FELL BY MORE THAN 50% TO The Takeovers Panel was also very busy in 2019, hearing 38 applications. $19 BILLION This was the second highest ever, as the Panel comes to celebrate its 20th birthday in March 2020. 5 1 MARKET ACTIVITY Public M&A activity down after bumper 2018 However, and significantly, the number of transactions worth over $500 million almost halved from 21 to 11 (albeit, it is worth noting In last year’s Review, we reported that Australian public M&A that 2018 was an eight-year high in this regard). The decrease activity was the highest it had been for the past seven years. in larger transactions overshadowed the slight increase in deals At the time, it was noted that the federal election and expected between $50 and $500 million from 28 in 2018 to 30 in 2019. tightening of regulatory oversight might dampen transaction When measured by aggregate transaction value, the fall in public activity in 2019. M&A activity in 2019 appears even more pronounced, decreasing It seems that cautionary note became reality in 2019. Although by more than 50% from 2018 levels to approximately $24 billion. transaction activity was solid, transaction values failed to match This was a direct result of the marked decrease in higher-value the highs of 2018. deals. Indeed, the number of $1 billion+ deals almost halved from 10 in 2018 to six in 2019, with no deals over $5 billion (unlike in In total, there were 41 transactions valued at $50 million or more recent years). Interestingly, while large deals were done, the ASX in 2019, representing a 16.3% decrease from the previous year but
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inception 9 February 2005 Investment Universe ASX Listed No. Of
    The Quest Australian Equities Concentrated Inception 9 February 2005 Portfolio is a Separately Managed Account (SMA), Investment Universe ASX listed actively managed by Quest Asset Partners Pty Limited. The objective is to return 4% p.a. over the No. of holdings Maximum of 35 S&P/ASX300 Accumulation Index (pre fees). SMA’s Quest AUM $747 million are professionally managed portfolios where the investor retains beneficial ownership of the Strategy AUM $58 million underlying securities. Investment Horizon 3 – 5 years Investment Strategy Fundamental with a key focus on business quality and free cash flow The Quest portfolio was slightly positive for the month which Derivatives/Shorting Nil was 85bp ahead of the market which fell 0.8% in January. Lonsec Rating Reviewed and rated by January delivered a quieter holiday market but a jolt of reality Lonsec as Trump policy moved from theory to active. The Australian market eased less than a percent with Resources, Healthcare and Materials firm while Banks, REITS and Industrials fell. The market was both subdued and also cautious given the $330 burst of optimism in December post the US election. The new Trump administration is now in full flight and causing tremors thanks to a divisive combination of hurried executive orders, a $280 combatant approach to media, simplistic rationale and an authoritative attitude to international diplomacy. Despite that the global markets are still hoping for $230 infrastructure spending, more growth, tax cuts, rising inflation and less regulation. Investors are hopeful while being a little $180 nervous at the same time. Calendar 2016 is only the second time in 12 years that Quest has lagged the market over a calendar year.
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidated Financial Statements of Asa Newco Gmbh for the Stub Period from April 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014
    Asa NewCo GmbH Consolidated financial statements of Asa NewCo GmbH for the stub period from April 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 Asa NewCo GmbH Consolidated Financial Statements 1. Consolidated income statement ............................................................. 1 2. Consolidated statement of comprehensive income .................................... 3 3. Consolidated balance sheet ................................................................... 4 4. Consolidated statement of changes in equity ........................................... 5 5. Consolidated cash flow statement .......................................................... 6 6. Notes to the consolidated financial statements ......................................... 7 6.1. General information and summary of significant accounting policies . 7 6.1.1 General information ................................................................... 7 6.1.2 Basis of preparation .................................................................. 8 6.1.3 Published standards, interpretations and amendments applicable as of April 1, 2014 as well those adopted early on a voluntary basis ......... 9 6.1.4 Issued but not yet applied standards, interpretations and amendments ............................................................................ 9 6.1.5 Scope of consolidation ............................................................. 11 6.1.6 Consolidation principles ............................................................ 11 6.1.7 Presentation and functional currency.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Public Offerings
    November 2017 Initial Public Offerings An Issuer’s Guide (US Edition) Contents INTRODUCTION 1 What Are the Potential Benefits of Conducting an IPO? 1 What Are the Potential Costs and Other Potential Downsides of Conducting an IPO? 1 Is Your Company Ready for an IPO? 2 GETTING READY 3 Are Changes Needed in the Company’s Capital Structure or Relationships with Its Key Stockholders or Other Related Parties? 3 What Is the Right Corporate Governance Structure for the Company Post-IPO? 5 Are the Company’s Existing Financial Statements Suitable? 6 Are the Company’s Pre-IPO Equity Awards Problematic? 6 How Should Investor Relations Be Handled? 7 Which Securities Exchange to List On? 8 OFFER STRUCTURE 9 Offer Size 9 Primary vs. Secondary Shares 9 Allocation—Institutional vs. Retail 9 KEY DOCUMENTS 11 Registration Statement 11 Form 8-A – Exchange Act Registration Statement 19 Underwriting Agreement 20 Lock-Up Agreements 21 Legal Opinions and Negative Assurance Letters 22 Comfort Letters 22 Engagement Letter with the Underwriters 23 KEY PARTIES 24 Issuer 24 Selling Stockholders 24 Management of the Issuer 24 Auditors 24 Underwriters 24 Legal Advisers 25 Other Parties 25 i Initial Public Offerings THE IPO PROCESS 26 Organizational or “Kick-Off” Meeting 26 The Due Diligence Review 26 Drafting Responsibility and Drafting Sessions 27 Filing with the SEC, FINRA, a Securities Exchange and the State Securities Commissions 27 SEC Review 29 Book-Building and Roadshow 30 Price Determination 30 Allocation and Settlement or Closing 31 Publicity Considerations
    [Show full text]
  • Ellerston Global Equity Managers Fund PERFORMANCE REPORT January 2018
    Ellerston Global Equity Managers Fund PERFORMANCE REPORT January 2018 Fund performance^ Investment Objective 1 3 1 3 Yr 5 Yr Strategy Since Month Months Yr p.a p.a Inception p.a The investment objective is to generate superior returns for Unitholders with a focus on risk and capital preservation. GEMS A Net 0.95% 11.13% 22.51% 20.46% 17.51% 13.90% GEMS B Net 0.95% 11.13% 22.51% 20.45% 17.33% 13.72% Investment Strategy Global long/short equity Overlays fundamental stock selection with macroeconomic outlook Bias toward Australia Commentary In January, equity markets continued their upward charge, taking their lead from the US. The Dow Jones and S&P 500 drove the rally in developed equity markets, delivering their tenth consecutive month of positive returns, maintaining their stellar performances and hitting new record high levels as the month Key Information progressed. The major Eurozone and Asian equity markets were all in positive territory, buoyed by strong earnings delivered by corporates and positive Strategy Inception 1 January economic outlooks reinforced by central bankers, politicians and business Date 2002 leaders at the gathering at Davos. However, the month ended with markets trading off their intra-month highs, as US bond yields backed up sharply, Fund Net Asset A$195.6M Value signalling inflationary concerns and potentially highlighting stretched equity valuations. Liquidity Quarterly USA: Equity markets in the US continued their explosive rally, with the broader Class A Redemption A$ 1.7548 S&P 500 index logging its strongest start to a year since 1987.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender Equity: Big Companies Better on Boards, but Below ASX Average on Management Positions
    Media Release 8 March 2016 Gender equity: big companies better on boards, but below ASX average on management positions New Catalyst research, released for International Women’s Day, reveals the best and worst points of women’s participation in corporate Australia. The report covers female participation on boards and in management as well as assessing policies to help women in the workplace. While some companies in the ASX have real equality on their boards, overall the ASX has a long way to go. ASX50 companies have 27% female board members while the ASX200 has just 22%. Top and bottom companies, women on boards, ASX100: # women board Company Industry members # board members % women on board Medibank Private Insurance 5 8 63% Mirvac Group Property 4 8 50% DUET Group Utilities 4 9 44% Spark Infrastructure Utilities 3 7 43% Woolworths Retail 3 7 43% Oil Search Oil & Gas 1 9 11% Westfield Property 1 12 8% Qube Holdings Logistics 0 8 0% Domino's Pizza Hospitality 0 6 0% TPG Telecom Teleco 0 5 0% Women’s participation in management positions is stronger across the ASX200 (37%) than the larger companies in the ASX50 (29%). Health care companies performed best in the ASX100: Company Industry Female managers worldwide Healthscope Health Care 80% Primary Health Care Health Care 60% Ramsay Health Care Health Care 53% Sonic Healthcare Health Care 53% For media enquiries, please contact: Tom Burmester 0468 926 833 www.tai.org.au Flight Centre Travel 49% JB Hi-Fi Specialty Retail 8% Iluka Resources Metals & Mining 8% Sirtex Medical Biotechnology 8% Downer EDI Infrastructure 7% Alumina Limited Metals & Mining 0% “The ASX50 has 5 CEOs named Andrew, 4 named Michael but only three who are women: Alison Watkins (Coca Cola Amatil), Susan Lloyd-Horwitz (Mirvac Group) and Kerrie Mather (Sydney Airport).” said report author Martijn Boersma.
    [Show full text]
  • Appointment of Two Non-Executive Directors
    News Release 11 December 2019 Appointment of two Non-executive Directors The Board of GrainCorp (ASX:GNC) (GrainCorp or the Company) is pleased to announce the appointment of Ms Jane McAloon and Ms Kathy Grigg as Non-executive Directors of GrainCorp, effective today. GrainCorp Chairman, Mr Graham Bradley AM, said Ms McAloon and Ms Grigg’s extensive experience across a range of industries, both as executives and non-executive directors, would be a strong fit for the Board. “We are delighted to welcome Jane and Kathy to the GrainCorp Board. They each bring diverse perspectives and different skill-sets, which are valuable to the Company as we refresh our director cohort in anticipation of the planned demerger of our Malt business in early 2020.” Ms Jane McAloon: Ms McAloon has over 25 years’ experience in the natural resources, energy, infrastructure and utility industries in corporate and public sector leadership positions, including senior executive roles with BHP Billiton and AGL. Ms McAloon is a Non-executive Director of Viva Energy, Energy Australia and Home Consortium. She is a Board member of Allens and represents the Future Fund on the Port of Melbourne. She is a Director of Monash University Foundation and Bravery Trust. Previous directorships include Healthscope, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Cogstate and Australian War Memorial. She was also previously Chairman of the Defence Reserves Support Council and a Member of the Referendum Council on Constitutional Recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Ms McAloon holds a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Economics (Hons) from Monash University and a Graduate Diploma in Corporate Governance.
    [Show full text]
  • ESG Reporting by the ASX200
    Australian Council of Superannuation Investors ESG Reporting by the ASX200 August 2019 ABOUT ACSI Established in 2001, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) provides a strong, collective voice on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues on behalf of our members. Our members include 38 Australian and international We undertake a year-round program of research, asset owners and institutional investors. Collectively, they engagement, advocacy and voting advice. These activities manage over $2.2 trillion in assets and own on average 10 provide a solid basis for our members to exercise their per cent of every ASX200 company. ownership rights. Our members believe that ESG risks and opportunities have We also offer additional consulting services a material impact on investment outcomes. As fiduciary including: ESG and related policy development; analysis investors, they have a responsibility to act to enhance the of service providers, fund managers and ESG data; and long-term value of the savings entrusted to them. disclosure advice. Through ACSI, our members collaborate to achieve genuine, measurable and permanent improvements in the ESG practices and performance of the companies they invest in. 6 INTERNATIONAL MEMBERS 32 AUSTRALIAN MEMBERS MANAGING $2.2 TRILLION IN ASSETS 2 ESG REPORTING BY THE ASX200: AUGUST 2019 FOREWORD We are currently operating in a low-trust environment Yet, safety data is material to our members. In 2018, 22 – for organisations generally but especially businesses. people from 13 ASX200 companies died in their workplaces. Transparency and accountability are crucial to rebuilding A majority of these involved contractors, suggesting that this trust deficit. workplace health and safety standards are not uniformly applied.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Leadership: the Catalyst for Accelerating Change
    BUSINESS LEADERSHIP: THE CATALYST FOR ACCELERATING CHANGE Follow us on twitter @30pctAustralia OUR OBJECTIVE is to achieve 30% of ASX 200 seats held by women by end 2018. Gender balance on boards does achieve better outcomes. GREATER DIVERSITY ON BOARDS IS VITAL TO THE GOOD GOVERNANCE OF AUSTRALIAN BUSINESSES. FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PERFORMANCE AS WELL AS EQUITY THE CASE IS CLEAR. AUSTRALIA HAS MORE THAN ENOUGH CAPABLE WOMEN TO EXCEED THE 30% TARGET. IF YOUR BOARD IS NOT INVESTING IN THE CAPABILITY THAT DIVERSITY BRINGS, IT’S NOW A MARKED DEPARTURE FROM THE WHAT THE INVESTOR AND BROADER COMMUNITY EXPECT. Angus Armour FAICD, Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Australian Institute of Company Directors BY BRINGING TOGETHER INFLUENTIAL COMPANY CHAIRS, DIRECTORS, INVESTORS, HEAD HUNTERS AND CEOs, WE WANT TO DRIVE A BUSINESS-LED APPROACH TO INCREASING GENDER BALANCE THAT CHANGES THE WAY “COMPANIES APPROACH DIVERSITY ISSUES. Patricia Cross, Australian Chair 30% Club WHO WE ARE LEADERS LEADING BY EXAMPLE We are a group of chairs, directors and business leaders taking action to increase gender diversity on Australian boards. The Australian chapter launched in May 2015 with a goal of achieving 30% women on ASX 200 boards by the end of 2018. AUSTRALIAN 30% CLUB MEMBERS Andrew Forrest Fortescue Metals Douglas McTaggart Spark Group Ltd Infrastructure Trust Samuel Weiss Altium Ltd Kenneth MacKenzie BHP Billiton Ltd John Mulcahy Mirvac Ltd Stephen Johns Brambles Ltd Mark Johnson G8 Education Ltd John Shine CSL Ltd Paul Brasher Incitec Pivot
    [Show full text]
  • A Roadmap to Initial Public Offerings
    A Roadmap to Initial Public Offerings 2019 The FASB Accounting Standards Codification® material is copyrighted by the Financial Accounting Foundation, 401 Merritt 7, PO Box 5116, Norwalk, CT 06856-5116, and is reproduced with permission. This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication. As used in this document, “Deloitte” means Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, which are separate subsidiaries of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of our legal structure. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Copyright © 2019 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Other Publications in Deloitte’s Roadmap Series Business Combinations Business Combinations — SEC Reporting Considerations Carve-Out Transactions Consolidation — Identifying a Controlling Financial Interest Contracts on an Entity’s Own Equity
    [Show full text]
  • Parent Company Puzzle in Japan: Another Case of the Limits of Arbitrage＊
    Hitotsubashi Journal of Commerce and Management 42 (2008), pp.67-85. Ⓒ Hitotsubashi University PARENT COMPANY PUZZLE IN JAPAN: ANOTHER CASE OF THE LIMITS OF ARBITRAGE＊ KOTARO INOUE,HIDEAKI KIYOSHI KATO, AND JAMES SCHALLHEIM Abstract During the internet bubble in the U.S., there were several instances that the market value of a parent firm was less than the market value of its holdings of a publicly traded subsidiary. This parent company puzzle is also observed in Japan. The objective of this paper is to investigate whether this puzzle represents mispricing by the stock market, and, if so, to investigate why the observed mispricing persisted for a long period of time. The results are inconsistent with market efficiency. Because of market frictions, there is no guarantee that distortions in stock prices will always be quickly corrected by arbitrage transactions. Surprisingly, even highly liquid stocks listed on the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) can deviate substantially from fundamental values for a long period of time. We suggest these large and persistent price distortions could be attributable to the lack of active arbitrage activity in Japan due to market frictions. Keywords: limits of arbitrage, anomaly, market frictions JEL classification: G14, G15 According to the Nikkei Financial Daily of February 5, 2003, Eifuku Master Fund, a hedge fund with estimated total assets under management of $300 million, went bankrupt due directly to losses on the arbitrage transaction of selling NTT DoCoMo and buying its parent firm, NTT. When the fund sold DoCoMo short and bought NTT long on January 6, 2003, the relative price of DoCoMo was too high compared to the price of NTT which owned more than 50 percent of DoCoMo shares.
    [Show full text]
  • Directors' Report FY2008
    BlueScope Steel Limited Directors’ Report BlueScope Steel Limited ABN 16 000 011 058 Directors’ Report for the Financial Year Ended 30 June 2008 Contents Page Corporate Directory 2 Directors’ Report 3 Directors’ Biographies 6 Remuneration Report 10 Corporate Governance Statement 33 BlueScope Steel Limited Directors’ Report CORPORATE DIRECTORY Directors G J Kraehe AO Chairman R J McNeilly Deputy Chairman P F O’Malley Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer D J Grady H K McCann AM P J Rizzo Y P Tan D B Grollo Secretary M G Barron Executive Leadership Team P F O’Malley Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer M G Barron Chief Legal Officer and Company Secretary N H Cornish Chief Executive, Australian and New Zealand Steel Manufacturing Businesses I R Cummin Executive General Manager, People and Organisation Performance S R Elias Chief Financial Officer B G Kruger Outgoing President, North America and Corporate Strategy and Innovation P E O’Keefe Chief Executive, Australian Coated and Industrial Markets M R Vassella Chief Executive, Australian Distribution and Solutions Notice of Annual General The Annual General Meeting of BlueScope Steel Limited will be held Meeting at Wesley Conference Centre, 220 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000 at 2.00 pm, Thursday 13 November 2008 Registered Office Level 11, 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Telephone: +61 3 9666 4000 Fax: +61 3 9666 4111 Email: [email protected] Postal Address: PO Box 18207, Collins Street East, Melbourne, Victoria 8003 Share Registrar Link
    [Show full text]
  • For Personal Use Only Use Personal for Prospectus Joint Lead Managers Healthscope Limited Initial Public Offering of Ordinary Shares Important Notes
    Healthscope Limited Healthscope Prospectus Joint Global Co-ordinators For personal use only Prospectus Joint Lead Managers Healthscope Limited Initial Public Offering of Ordinary Shares Important Notes Offer No person named in this Prospectus, If the securities are able to be traded on The Offer contained in this Prospectus is nor any other person, guarantees the a securities market and you wish to trade an invitation to acquire fully paid ordinary performance of Healthscope, the the securities through that market, you shares in Healthscope Hospitals Holdings repayment of capital by Healthscope will have to make arrangements for a Pty Ltd to be renamed Healthscope Limited. or the payment of a return on the Shares. participant in that market to sell the All references to Healthscope Limited in No person is authorised to give any securities on your behalf. If the securities this Prospectus are to this entity (ABN 65 information or make any representation market does not operate in New Zealand, 144 840 639) (“Healthscope”) (“Shares”). in connection with the Offer which is the way in which the market operates, the This Prospectus is issued by Healthscope not contained in this Prospectus. Any regulation of participants in that market, and Healthscope SaleCo Limited information or representation not so and the information available to you about ACN 169 924 396 (“SaleCo”). contained may not be relied on as having the securities and trading may differ from been authorised by Healthscope, SaleCo securities markets that operate in Lodgement and listing or their Directors. You should rely only New Zealand. This Prospectus is dated 30 June 2014 on information in this Prospectus.
    [Show full text]