I understand the other side of the criticism, but despite the problems, I don’t consider a directed share issue to be a completely worthless financing solution, as is sometimes suggested in general discussion (cf. an axe is a good tool for splitting wood, but for cutting, there are often better options). Last year, I wrote my own “two cents” on the subject in a column for Viisas Raha.
On a general level, the advantages compared to a rights issue are speed, cost, certainty of execution, and likely also short-term share price volatility (if that is of interest). As I wrote in the comment linked by Alokas, in EcoUp’s case, I think the arguments regarding price and certainty of execution are valid. On the other hand, the downsides of a directed issue relate especially to the already mentioned suffering of shareholder equality and potential discounts relative to the stock market price (EcoUp’s plan includes no discount relative to the short-term volume-weighted average price). Timing also plays a huge role in whether a directed share issue is a good or bad choice by the board. I doubt many retail investors would badmouth Remedy’s directed issue carried out at a share price level of around 45 euros these days. Hindsight regarding timing in one direction or another is also very easy. I’m not accusing anyone of being wise after the fact, but just stating that the logic of decisions may appear very different after some time has passed.
Right now, by the way, a private investor has the opportunity to buy EcoUp shares on the stock exchange at a lower price than the directed issue price, if compensating for the dilution appeals and/or there is faith in a business turnaround. Of course, the situation changes constantly according to trading, and its persistence or the volume available for purchase below the planned issue price cannot be guaranteed.