Where did you get that idea about a sale made below the redemption price?
I’m pretty sure they were redeemed normally at exactly the price of 3.8 EUR.
Wasn’t the stock below €3.8 yesterday? And it ended below that too? I thought it would have sold in the closing auction, but it was some other sale… does the cat man have to flag now that over 90% has been acquired?
According to Investing.com, 50m shares changed hands at the start yesterday, so maybe Ilmarinen’s shares went there at 3.844.
50,076,363 shares were tendered in G City’s tender offer, so I suppose those 50m shares recorded at the morning start are those. Board members who accepted the tender offer also announced yesterday that they sold their shares at a price of 3.80 euros per share. This means the trade date for the shares tendered in the offer was recorded as yesterday. Most likely, Ilmarinen has therefore accepted the tender offer and sold all its shares to G City for 3.80 euros. This would also explain how G City managed to acquire as much as over 86% of the shares—that Ilmarinen took the offer.
Ilmarinen also held over 13 million shares, yet only a million shares changed hands in the closing auction, and only just over a million shares in total during the whole day’s trading, so Ilmarinen could not have sold its shares on the exchange yesterday.
3 Likes
Right, exactly, but those Ilmarinen shares aren’t showing up in the daily or weekly volumes anyway, so they must be part of that 50m then? So we’re not over 90% if that’s the case…
1 Like
There’s nothing unclear about this; Ilmarinen accepted the tender offer, the trades were executed yesterday, and the flagging notification was issued today.
7 Likes
Well, Ilmarinen apparently correctly noted that it cannot prevent the directed share issue and didn’t want to get stuck wrangling in court over the subscription price. The 90% threshold doesn’t need to be exceeded; 2/3 of the shares and votes represented at the general meeting is enough. Arguing over the justification would obviously have been futile, as it exists now at the latest. A good—or actually bad—example of how you have to analyze other owners just as much as the company itself, like the recent Ahlstrom-Munksjö case. If Katzman ends up redeeming the entire company anyway, he should probably do it before the recapitalization, because KKO:2025:94 | 24.10.2025 | Ennakkopäätökset | Korkein oikeus | Finlex highlights the yield value, which is, of course, low or non-existent now that the cost of debt is high.
I once thought I would hold my shares for a long time, but the tender offer gave off bad vibes, so I sold them immediately. The lot of a minority shareholder is tough if you don’t have information on sufficiently strong support in court. On the other hand, I don’t doubt for a moment that Katzman has skilled lawyers at his disposal. In this regard, it would be interesting to know who is financing Katzman, but maybe it’s better that I don’t know.
7 Likes
Are you suggesting that Citykonna carried out a directed share issue to Kissamies to increase its ownership to >90%?
1 Like
A directed share issue requires a proposal by the Board of Directors and a resolution by the General Meeting.
1 Like