CapitaMalls Asia

[CityFarmer]

Yep, that's wat I'm complaining about, that it would be nicer for the 100% to be 'shares not owned/to be owned by offerer at offer date', less shares acquired by offerer after offer date thru open market.

Finally I caught your point, as well as Mr. specuvestor reply below

"I can see where u are coming from. But if YOU are the regulator what other form of corporate actions would u exclude the majority shareholder from and be consistent with pari passu principles? Eg rights, dividends, warrants?"

Your "nicer" seems not from perspectives of offeror and offerees. The current rule should be "nicer" to both of them, IMO.

Well, I still find it unfair that offeree shareholders are not given the choice to sell in the open market at the offer price without 'accepting' the offer.

As a matter of fact, if the shares are sold to offeror, the number is shown as acquisition, rather than as acceptance. It partially fulfill your "fairness", amid the total number counts, which is fair to everyone.

If the shares aren't sold to offeror, the right is transferred. You haven't accept the offer either, but transfer your right, which also fair to everyone.

Well, the discussion seems getting out of hand. I rest the case. Thanks for the topic, and a nice discussion.