It really doesn’t matter how much Osmo buys. Osmo has always been the person controlled by the company’s controlling interest, and current purchases have no effect on that.
It is indeed. But perhaps as a shareholder, I would hope for a different kind of development.
2 Likes
Yes.. Hahtela has, in my opinion, indeed moved the company forward very well, and I believe the pace will accelerate. 
4 Likes
Certainly, there are benefits to a dominant voting power, but could Osmo S do something like accumulate enough shares to then make a final takeover bid for the entire company? Since he has money from previous deals and no more is needed to run the business through share issues… and if it starts looking really good, he could offer small premiums to others who own shares through the stock market and acquire the results of his life’s work for his family. Does such a possibility truly exist? I ask because I don’t know myself.
4 Likes
You don’t have to accept a tender offer. Compulsory redemption is a different matter. For that, however, 90% of the shares are needed. I don’t immediately see such a scenario. The ownership is, however, so scattered that it’s not very likely.
Would redemption require 90% of the shares or voting power, or both? Now that there are two classes of shares and the shares with more voting power are almost all held by Suovaniemi and Hefe, Suovaniemi could quite easily acquire 90% of the voting power, perhaps even with a small premium, if Hefe wished to divest its entire ownership.
3 Likes
Regarding shares and votes, and when looking at the ownership, redemption/”takeover” can certainly be ruled out.
3 Likes
Yep, it’s stated quite clearly in a couple of places there:
“According to the Companies Act, a shareholder who owns more than nine-tenths of the company’s shares and the voting rights produced by all shares (the redeemer) has the right to redeem the shares of other shareholders at a fair price.”
and
“The redeemer must promptly notify the company of the creation or cessation of the right and obligation to redeem. The right to redeem arises when a shareholder owns more than 90% of the company’s shares and votes.”
And for good measure, the same link:
Hey @Antti_Siltanen!
As our company’s official analyst, could you kindly confirm that this is indeed the case?
That is, the right to redeem minority shares arises (only) when a shareholder owns
BOTH more than 90% of the company’s shares (numerically from the entire share capital)
AND SIMULTANEOUSLY (most naturally) more than 90% of the votes.
Confirmation of this would bring considerable peace of mind to the owner compared to a situation where merely over 90% of voting power would be sufficient to take over the company.
1 Like
Since no exhaustive answer came from any expert writing on the forum, this question, which I found very interesting, bothered me so much that I called an investor friend (who is much better networked than I am).
He said he would shake a tree or two and see what falls into his lap, if anything.
I also sent him my entire post that I quoted here, from which he can quote directly if needed.
This way, one can appeal to a foolish but curious friend without losing face (by asking silly questions).
We’ll see if anything exhaustive comes of it.
The fact that no one has bothered or been able to answer this as an expert makes me, as a skeptic, lean towards a more unfavorable interpretation for us small investors:
A mere 90% of the votes is enough to take over a company. Ownership of shares in terms of total quantity has no significance.
I truly hope I am wrong.
3 Likes
Dude, you’re asking that on a Friday afternoon!
but yeah, that’s how it goes
3 Likes
Well, at least one expert was found there, who even bothered to reply amidst this Friday evening’s hustle and bustle.
Many thanks, @Junkbondking !!
I also gave my friend a heads-up to stop barking up the wrong tree. This time, the wisdom of the crowd proved its worth.
I now feel a bit more confident to start considering possible additional purchases, as I still see quite immense potential here, which is now simultaneously unfolding around the world.
It’s unlikely that Osmo and/or perhaps rather the estate, acting as authorized administrators (due to age alone), are aggressively accumulating this with the intention of shorting it.
A pleasant weekend to all for gathering strength, with the upcoming new investment week in mind!
2 Likes
Direct reference to the Finnish Limited Liability Companies Act (Osakeyhtiölaki | 624/2006 | Lainsäädäntö | Finlex)
Chapter 18 Redemption of minority shares
General provisions
Section 1 Right and obligation to redeem
A person who holds more than nine-tenths of all the shares and votes in the company (redeemer) is entitled to redeem the shares of other shareholders at a fair price. A shareholder whose shares can be redeemed (minority shareholder) has a corresponding right to demand the redemption of their shares.
5 Likes
This is good for the patient just by avoiding an endoscopy, as it’s not a pleasant procedure.
7 Likes
Isn’t that test result quite bad? If Gastropanel shows that everything is okay, but there’s still a 10% chance that everything isn’t okay. So if additional tests still have to be done, what added value does Gastropanel bring?
I’ll open up some more content so that the information isn’t just behind links. 
New study: GastroPanel® safely rules out the need for gastroscopy
A recently published clinical study confirms that when the GastroPanel® test result is normal, upper abdominal endoscopy, i.e., gastroscopy, is generally not needed.
This is a significant breakthrough for healthcare systems struggling with tight budgets, rising costs, long queues, and limited specialist resources.
It’s hard to find anything negative about this, quite the opposite. When these articles are published in industry journals, one would think that interest in the company and its product would start to awaken more broadly.
Having experienced the procedure myself, it’s rare to pay hundreds for the pleasure of a beautiful woman holding your hand while a man dressed (at least) as a doctor shoves a tube over a meter long inside you. I would have preferred to do things with GastroPanel.
4 Likes
So, what is the reason then that an endoscopy is performed even if Gastropanel shows that the matter is in order? It doesn’t state that. But it also doesn’t say that the Gastropanel result would be wrong in that case. It only states that the examination is done regardless of the result.
But then to the point. If nine out of ten endoscopies can be omitted, where an adult has a specialist doctor and a nurse involved in the procedure, or for a child (I don’t know if Gastropanel is suitable for children or if there’s even a need) where an anesthesiologist and a nurse, an examining doctor and an assisting nurse are involved, then certainly money and healthcare personnel’s time are saved.
Indeed, other factors influence the necessity of gastroscopy besides just the gastropanel result. It is only a very effective tool.
My understanding has been that Gastropanel would be a preliminary test, so if it shows green, the patient can be sent home and doesn’t need an endoscopy. If it shows red, then further examinations are ordered. But if there’s still a 10% probability with a green result that further examination is needed, then how can that test result be trusted? I don’t know if I’m misunderstanding the test process or the research result.
Of course, the patient’s symptoms, history, and risk factors influence the decision.
2 Likes
Do you assume that every test and treatment performed in hospitals is 100% accurate/successful? For example, over the past year, there have been many positive news stories from studies around the world where GastroPanel has been clearly proven to be a working solution.
1 Like