The ShareSoc blog provides news and informal commentary from directors, members and other contributors. Entries reflect the personal views of the authors, which do not necessarily reflect ShareSoc’s formal position. Contributors may hold shares in the companies mentioned. Nothing in this blog should be viewed as financial advice. You may submit comments on blog posts, but ShareSoc reserves the right to remove or edit inappropriate or defamatory submissions.
You must be logged in as ShareSoc or SIGnet member to access this page. Login here to view this page, or sign up if you are not yet a member, to obtain an account for our website.
Enter your email to sign up as a free Associate ShareSoc member and receive our emails. It takes a few seconds — and on the next page you'll have the option to customise your membership.
Fascinating story Mark but I beg to differ with your final comment. Surely this is just an example of the cut and thrust of the capital markets. Provided this hasn’t created a monopoly position (in which case someone should seek the involvement of the CMA) then its up to the shareholders and the majority of them voted for the situation in which they now find themselves.
Hi Mike,
The key point is this: what is the purpose of the City Code? It exists to prevent one shareholder (or a concert party) from taking control of a company, without making an offer to other shareholders. Without the City Code, the controlling party could exercise control in their own interests, to the detriment of other shareholders, but the City Code is supposed to ensure that they can only do so if they give other shareholders the opportunity to exit at an agreed price.
The GMS (and POG) cases illustrate what appears to be a loophole in the City Code. That loophole being that a party subject to the code can make an initial offer, withdraw it and then be free to act in a manner that allows it to exercise control.
If possible, we should discuss this with the takeover panel.
Best,
Mark