Intralot - What the 83% tell us
All,
Please refer to our unchanged analysis here.
Intralot 21s locked up with only 82.62%, which is largely made up of the two principal holders - Oakhill and Beach Point. Interesting is the lack of further consent to the proposal. The “blocking stake” of the 24s in the 21s is only some 11% to our knowledge. So the remaining “free float” did not consent either, possibly angling for an improved offer to them in order to prevent a full-blown scheme, although that would also require a break-down of above stake that the 24s are holding.
Path ahead:
- The consent is not sufficient to simply amend the bonds with a supermajority under their NY Law indentures (90%), but converting jurisdiction to the UK where 75% should be sufficient within a plan scheme should be at least one option to achieve the same thing. Therefore an improved voluntary offer with only the threat of a scheme might just do the trick and prevent further cost.
The JV loophole:
- Meanwhile, the 24s are examining litigation angles, specifically regarding the JV loophole exploited in the proposed Dutch structure. However, communication lines still do not appear to be fully open. Dechert are exploring A&O’s comfort levels. We are sceptical but will wait and see how far they get.
Wolfgang
________________
E: wfelix@sarria.co.uk
T: +44 203 744 7003