More Coopers Vs Lion Nathan

[spog]

bugga, forgot to add slightly off topic.

 

[Uncle Fester]

They're still hanging in there....

news.com.au

:super:

M

 

[peas_and_corn]

who here thinks that the takeover is inevitable, despite Coopers' attempts at retaining control?

 

[redbeard]

I was talking to someone who used to work at LN recently. They had a very surprising mindset. While he agreed that Tooheys New was comparable to Carlton Draught, in terms of marketing & flavour, he said that LN had a much better & wider beer range than CUB. He also thought that LN investments in Coopers & Little Creatures was to expand au's beer quality, not necessarily to keep the competition close. Sounds like some serious indoctrination courses at LN that last a long time ....

 

[peas_and_corn]

Hmm... nah, that's just how executives (well, the ones I run into) think!

I work for ColesMyer; I'm a duty manager so I temd to hear a lot about how they think. My supervisor went to a safety training. At the training was the people to be trained, their respective store managers, and every single regional manager. Hmm... certainly causing free speech, hey?

Anyway, they asked whether wage cuts is a barrier to safety- who would put their hand up??

Just like when I went to roll cage training, they had the obligatory 'this is why we are much better than Woolies' bit.

ColesMyer and Woolies both believe that them taking over everything ie bottlos, having chemists in department stores, etc etc would increase competition, not strangle it. It's not just a sales pitch, there is a serious belief this is the case.

All this explains the mindset that encourages the claims redbeard heard.

 

[Aaron]

For the anti LN people out there, the ad Cooper's couldn't run:

The Adelaide people will get it.

 

[tangent]

lol, i was just going to post that!

 

[coolum brewer]

Interesting take on the LN bid (what everyone suspects, but haven't blurted out in the mainstream press - don't bite the hand that feeds you!)

Crikey

cheers
Peter

 

[Mr Bond]

Interesting take on the LN bid (what everyone suspects, but haven't blurted out in the mainstream press - don't bite the hand that feeds you!)

Crikey

cheers
Peter

[post="90684"][/post]​

Correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the piece on crikey led me to wonder if coopers are really using smoke and mirrors to prevent lion nathan from holding shares to protect their future option to become a third major brewing enterprise within australia.It would still be effectively selling out but would have the benefit of increasing their size,through foreign investment and at the same time hooking into an international brewing entity.If they could maintain there current aussie ale range ,but also brew a major euro lager for local/australasian markets they would surely become a major brewing force.
If thats what LN are tying to stymie then it would certainly be worth coopers trying to block it to keep all option open for the future.
Or am i just being to cynical?

 

[sinkas]

My mates, told me long ago that they were waiting until InBev proposed the right price and terms,

 

[coolum brewer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the piece on crikey led me to wonder if coopers are really using smoke and mirrors to prevent lion nathan from holding shares to protect their future option to become a third major brewing enterprise within australia.It would still be effectively selling out but would have the benefit of increasing their size,through foreign investment and at the same time hooking into an international brewing entity.If they could maintain there current aussie ale range ,but also brew a major euro lager for local/australasian markets they would surely become a major brewing force.
If thats what LN are tying to stymie then it would certainly be worth coopers trying to block it to keep all option open for the future.
Or am i just being to cynical?

[post="90769"][/post]​

I think there are cynics on both sides. Lion Nathan obviously wants to take a competitor in the only growing and most profitable brewing sector out of the picture. LN also recognise that Coopers has extra capacity available to brew another (international) premium brand. Coopers has a cosy little closed shareholder arrangement - even though it is a "public" company. Sentimentally, I think 95% of people here would like to see Coopers survive in its own right - but you've got to ask questions about Coopers' morality too.


(edited for clarity)

 

[peas_and_corn]

"In its attempt to halt Lion Nathan's bid, Coopers is believed to have told the ACCC last month that the acquisition would reduce competition."

I would agree with that.

"It is understood that Coopers argued that the acquisition would give Lion Nathan close to 50 per cent of national beer sales and about 35 per cent of the premium segment."

Well, numbers like this can be interpreted in different ways- define "premium"

"Coopers is also believed to have told the ACCC that allowing Lion Nathan to buy even one share in Coopers would give the trans-Tasman brewer of Tooheys, Hahn and XXXX first-tier pre-emptive rights, effectively putting it first in line to buy more shares when they came on the market, without having to go back to the ACCC."

Interesting...

"Coopers argued that the acquisition would mean Lion Nathan and its competitor CUB would distribute close to 100 per cent of beer in Australia."

I'd like to see their paperwork on those calculations...

 

[Bobby]

"Coopers argued that the acquisition would mean Lion Nathan and its competitor CUB would distribute close to 100 per cent of beer in Australia."

I'd like to see their paperwork on those calculations...

[post="90869"][/post]​

[/quote]

Who else do you think delivers the beer? Its cub or ln or a very very small portion is the private label/independant stuff...

 

[FNQ Bunyip]

O oh here we go the end is in site.....

From News.com.au


Coopers takeover approved
From: By Blair Speedy and Verity Edwards
December 06, 2005

LION Nathan's hostile $420 million bid for South Australia's Coopers Brewery received a huge boost yesterday when the competition regulator gave its approval for the offer to go ahead and the Takeovers Panel delayed a shareholder vote that could kill off the bid.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel said the regulator wouldn't oppose the bid because the majority of competition in the beer market was between Lion and Foster's Group - while Coopers had just 2 per cent of the national market.
"The evidence also suggested that the removal of Coopers as an independent beer wholesaler also would be unlikely to raise substantial competition concerns," he said.

"While Coopers provides sales and marketing services, it relies on the existing independent wholesale distribution network to physically distribute beer products. This network will remain in place following the acquisition. In the national beer market, Coopers only distributes a small percentage." Accordingly, the ACCC considered that the acquisition was unlikely to result in a substantial lessening of competition, he said.

Lion responded by dropping a number of conditions from its takeover bid and calling for the Coopers board to recommend shareholders accept the offer.

Chief executive Rob Murray said the company would no longer abandon the bid if shareholders voted to approve a proposed share buyback at the second of two extraordinary general meetings scheduled for tomorrow, and also waived a condition for "no adverse action by a public authority".


Advertisement:
The ACCC decision on the merger proposal was originally scheduled to be handed down on December 13, but was brought forward so that shareholders could know the ACCC's stance prior to voting at the EGMs.
But the Takeovers Panel last night announced it would delay the second EGM, at which Coopers' 117 shareholders will be asked to vote on a proposal to remove Lion's pre-emptive right to buy shares in the company, until late next week.

The news came just hours after an earlier announcement in which the panel said it would allow the vote to go ahead as planned, after rejecting an appeal from Lion to give shareholders more time to consider the implications of the Lion bid lapsing.

The panel later agreed to delay the meeting to allow Lion to send out documents to Coopers shareholders regarding the value of their shares and the implications of Coopers board decision to allow shareholders to withdraw any acceptances of Lion's bid.

Coopers said it still planned to hold the buyback EGM tomorrow.

But Lion's hopes for a favourable vote at next week's EGM on its pre-emptive rights received a huge setback when the full bench of the South Australian Supreme Court dismissed an appeal that would have allowed a parcel of 8.5 per cent of Coopers' shares to be voted to keep Lion on the Coopers constitution.

A shareholder vote of 75 per cent is required to remove Lion's pre-emptive rights.

Justice John Perry ruled last month that 114,000 shares belonging to the disputed estate of Phyllis Mary Rondahl were to remain frozen.

The shares' administrator, John Hart, had intended to vote against the resolution to remove Lion Nathan's rights.

In an expedited appeal against Justice Perry's decision, presiding Judge Bruce Debelle granted the executor's right to appeal - but then dismissed the appeal itself.

After the decision, former Coopers chairman and Cooper family patriarch Bill Cooper said he was "quite happy" with the decision and was looking forward to the EGM.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Looks like those who only dabble with kits will be migrating to Morgans en masse....


RIP, the last decent SA beer..........

M

 

[RobW]

"The evidence also suggested that the removal of Coopers as an independent beer wholesaler also would be unlikely to raise substantial competition concerns," seems to overlook a few other issues like choice, quality, heritage etc. Unfortunately Graeme Samuel seems to be just another in a long line that knows the cost of everything & the value of nothing.

 

[pharmaboy]

Looks like those who only dabble with kits will be migrating to Morgans en masse....


RIP, the last decent SA beer..........

M

[post="95713"][/post]​

A hell of a lot has to happen for this to go through yet, remember the coopers family still own the company and would have to choose to seel out - there is only one family member atm who will, who is fighting for a largish stake through the courts.

Lion Nathan it would seem are trying to get atound 15% of the company - not so they can take it over, but to stop anyone else taking it over - protecting their duopoly with fosters. IMO Coopers will remain independant, and if the rumours of what LN really want is true, it could be in beer drinkers interest for LN to get that % of the company. Better LN with 15% than Interbrew et al with 100%?

 

[Aaron]

A hell of a lot has to happen for this to go through yet, remember the coopers family still own the company and would have to choose to seel out - there is only one family member atm who will, who is fighting for a largish stake through the courts.

[post="95717"][/post]​

Lots of things do have to happen. However Cooper's is not family owned in the sense theat the faily own the entire company. Cooper's is a public but unlisted company. They have a anumber of shareholders that are outside the family and a very complex share structure. I do not know what percentage of ownership is outside the family but I'm sure this could be found out from a share register as they are a public company.

I wouldn't like to predict the outcome but it is certainly not a simple situation.

 

[pharmaboy]

A hell of a lot has to happen for this to go through yet, remember the coopers family still own the company and would have to choose to seel out - there is only one family member atm who will, who is fighting for a largish stake through the courts.

[post="95717"][/post]​

Lots of things do have to happen. However Cooper's is not family owned in the sense theat the faily own the entire company. Cooper's is a public but unlisted company. They have a anumber of shareholders that are outside the family and a very complex share structure. I do not know what percentage of ownership is outside the family but I'm sure this could be found out from a share register as they are a public company.

I wouldn't like to predict the outcome but it is certainly not a simple situation.

[post="95730"][/post]​

No,, they dont own the entire company, but they do own a majority (dont know how big the majority is). LN's only possible outcome that i can see, is that they get this disputed % (because she hates the family and will sell to LN out of spite I suspect) that will give them a fair wack, and then avery time someone wants to sell, because of the structure they have to offer it to existing holders - which means over time, LN can slowly get more and more, and more to the point can stop anyone else gaining a controlling stake ever. The EGM will protect them if the company has enough money to undertake the buyback to reabsorb tradeable shares off the register, and will give a way to sell out as required - hard to see that not getting over the line.

 

[Gulf Brewery]

A nice turnabout may happen and Lion Nathan may be the prey, not the predator for a change

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3559940a13,00.html

I received this from the realbeer.co.nz site.

Cheers
Pedro