Well here's my analysis of where we are at the moment if anyone wants to read it.
1) As we heard from Third Leg, OROT and SIRG couldn't agree terms in their initial negotiations as there was something that SIRG management would not compromise on.
2) Third leg told us that other companies had heard i) that SIRG's negotiations with OROT had broken down and had approached SIRG with a view to reversing their own company into the SIRG shell. ii) Who those "other" companies are we do not know.
3) On hearing that other companies had approached SIRG about reversing their own company into the SIRG shell, OROT re-opened negotiations with SIRG
4) If negotiations between SIRG and OROT broke down, first time around because SIRG directors would not budge on one particular point it stands to reason that if OROT re-opened negotiations, they (OROT) already know that SIRG management will still stick to their guns on the same thing that caused the negotiations to break down first time round which caused OROT to walk away in the first place. That is a logical conclusion.
5) OROT called SIRG's bluff and lost by walking away, because other companies approached SIRG management - so they had to go back and say something like - "Ok, we're willing to consider agreeing to your terms of ... " -whatever it was that caused negotiations to break down in the first place.
6) If that same sticking point in the negotiations between SIRG management & OROT management had caused the same sticking point again, OROT would have walked away for good, and looked for another shell to reverse into, rather than just give in to SIRG managements demands. Both parties already know that SIRG management will not move on what the sticking point was last time - so when they re-opened negotiations, they would have started at that point. Either OROT management would have had to give in to the SIRG management's terms, or walk away again. We would have known about that by now, if OROT had walked away again as the share price would have reflected it in trading.
7) It seems far more likely, to me, because negotiations seem to be taking even longer to conclude, that there are now other parties than SIRG & OROT involved. When things are a three way merger (or more) all interested partied will be gunning for the most favourable outcome for them.
Considering how straight forward the merger really was in the first place, I'm guessing and I DO say I'm guessing that OROT wanted the management to also give up some of their shares in the reorganisation - otherwise, it seems to me that SIRG management might have had majority control of the company, but be bringing nothing to the party.
What I mean by the above statement is, that OROT would be reversing in a huge company, with huge revenues, huge assets, and allowing SIRG management to keep the same shareholdings. I don't think that is fair, if that is the case as to what the sticking point was last time negotiations broke down.
So once you get three companies involved, then it starts getting tricky, if the third party is even bigger than OROT, they might be positioning themselves to have majority control of the company.
If it was just OROT and SIRG merging only still, it would be stupid of SIRG management to continue to hold out once again for the same deal they were gunning for last time - whatever that deal was that were pursuing.
All of the above is based on the balance of probabilities, and is my view only.
However, these negotiations, are like negotiations that a company starts in May for example - if you don't get a deal done that you're negotiating completely signed before the school summer holidays start, you quite often won't get that deal inked before September, because people are off with their families at different times throughout the summer and getting people all together at one time is very hard.
This time of the year is the same.
So if you don't get a deal signed and agreed before Christmas and New Year break, you're not going to get it done much before the middle of January at the very earliest for the same reasons as above.
Everyone is assuming a deal has been done. The truth is we don't know as nothing has been heard from anyone for months, and we all know Budman never picks up the phone when you call his house, so I gave up trying months ago.
The above is all based on the balance of probabilities. There must be some other factor, stopping a deal from going through. It would be stupid if it were only two parties involved to once again, be stuck on the same thing as last time.
This time round - OROT's hand would be weaker in holding out for what they want in negotiations as we are led to believe it was OROT that went back to SIRG management to re-open negotiations. Therefore if there are still only two parties involved, OROT would have to have moved substantially towards SIRG management's stated position, as they have the weaker hand now - by coming back and starting up negotiations.
That's the way I see it. This is all my own opinion.
My post are my opinion only. You should do your own due diligence before investing in any stock or take professional advice. I am not an investment advisor. Kind Regards.
