Caesars acquisition William Hill contested: now what happens? This is the question that shareholders and curious wonders after knowing that the HBK Investments (HBK) investment management fund contested the acquisition of Caesars and William Hillnull In the next paragraphs we will explain why we arrived at this point and how it will proceed.
Index [Hide]
The facts
Come written also in recent weeks, Caesars had closed the deal for the acquisition of the well -known English bookmaker William Hill on the base of 2.9 billion pounds. The Caesar and William merger was to be closed by April 1, 2022, and of course there was to be the approval by the controllers.
But here comes the letter of GWM Asset Management and HBK Capital Management. This was sent to the Board of Directors of the English bookmaker to highlight him the point of view. The two companies, in fact, believe that something has not been done in the right way.
HBK, for example, intervenes on the issue by asserting that: "Our opposition is based on our firm conviction that The shareholders who voted for the program did it without information that would allow them to evaluate the real merits”.
Despite this, however, the board of directors of William Hill seems quite quiet. He also says that 86.64% of shareholders voted in favor of the agreement after a long negotiation with Caesars.
What do HBK and GWM say about the acquisition of Caesars and William Hill contested?
In a nutshell, HBK is asking for doubts about the acquisition of Caesars and William Hill as the shareholders have voted in favor of that agreement, without the necessary informationnull These, however, should have been present within the documents.
Also GWM, revealing its serious intention to officially contest the merger Caesars and William Hill, in a letter sent to the well -known newspaper Financial Timesnull In the document it is stated that Board of Directors did not have some significant information at his disposal. These they could have changed the shareholders On the acquisition Caesars and William Hill. This is because, always according to GWM, Caesars would not have had the financial skills to carry out the operation and acquisition of the English bookmaker.
Caesars acquisition William Hill contested: why the intervention of HBK and GMW?
If you are wondering why GWM and HBK are so interested in the Caesars merger e william hill, you must know that in reality these two speculative funds have small shares of the English bookmaker. HBK, for example, is the owner of 10% of shares, while GWM has just over 1%.
And these believe that the possibilities offered by William Hill in Caesars, especially from the point of view of the United States, represent a decidedly important possibility and therefore with a weight, and a value even higher.
The United States, in fact, from the point of view of sports betting, are a real treasure. A sentence of the Supreme Court, in fact, has established that federal states can legalize the sports betting sector in full autonomy.
Reactions
At the moment, no official indications have arrived from William Hill and there will be hardlynull This at least until the situation has completely clarified and the acquisition of Caesars and William Hill is completed.
No comments, instead by the other important shareholders of William Hill, including Société Générale and Swiss credit, who preferred not to comment, as HG Vora Capital also did.
The main problem according to HBK
The most important point on which HBK beats is that William Hill has not disclosed all the terms of the joint venture stipulated with Eldorado. The latter, then, was acquired by Caesars in 2018. In addition to a relevant price difference compared to when it was the offer, in fact, there is also another questionnull In the agreement, in fact, it was established that if a company included by Caesar in the list of "limited aquirers", he had purchased William Hill, Caesars could end the joint venture.
William Hill's fault according to HBK is not to have specified that Caesars could only add one name periodically, that is, every six monthsnull And this way of doing, very confusing and not very precise, always according to those who contest, therefore caused the incorrect evaluation by the shareholders.
