A-B board has met 6 times on InBev offer
Anheuser-Busch filed its consent-revocation statement today, the latest volley in its fight against InBev’s unsolicited offer. Boiled down, the document says shareholders should keep A-B’s current board because a proposed alternative slate would be beholden to InBev. A-B argues:
The InBev Nominees have conflicts of interest and are not in a position to best serve the interests of the Company’s stockholders.
It adds later:
In summary, the Board believes that the InBev Nominees have been chosen by InBev not to protect the interests of the Company’s stockholders, but rather for the singular purpose of approving a transaction that the Board has already determined to be inadequate and not in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders.
Most of the remaining rhetoric is pretty predictable. For people who have been following this fight closely, the interesting part of the document is a chronology that starts on May 23, the day a Financial Times website broke the story that InBev was considering a $65-a-share bid. The chronology shows that A-B’s board has met six times since then, on May 29, June 13, June 20, June 25, June 26 and July 7.
Only the June 20 meeting had been widely reported. It was at the June 26 meeting that A-B’s board rejected the $65-a-share offer. At the most recent meeting, two days ago, the document says that the board “met to further consider the company’s strategic alternatives.”
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
David Nicklaus has covered St. Louis business for more than 25 years. His column appears three days a week on the Post-Dispatch business page. 
It makes sense to keep the current AB board. Considering the fact that all Inbev has given is a NON-BINDING proposal, once they get the people they want in there, who is to say that they don’t tender a lower offer? Then where are we? We can still turn the offer down, but then we are stuck with a puppet board.
If a were a shareholder I would not put in place a board hand picked by the fox and contains a member who clearly has a vindictive motives for being on the board (Aldophus) and expect them to act in my best interests.
Lori you are correct until they are willing to put it in a binding contract what they are willing to pay/share it is the classic “fox guarding the henhouse” scenerio.
i would ask all shareholders to give this “new” management group a chance. they have only been there since dec. of 2006. good things are starting to happen at this great company. it takes time to right a ship this size. inbev is trying to buy this company on the cheap. please be patient. sales are up,bud lt. lime is a huge success,ultra is up nicely and costs will come under better control. PLEASE DON’T LET THE BRAZILIANS STEAL THIS GREAT AMERICAN BREWERY !!
Were I an institutional shareholder, I would put in place the board that was going to maximize my potential returns in the future. I’m not sure that either of these boards would do the best job of that; one of them doesn’t want to sell the company when it’s being offered a hefty premium, and the other may want to sell the company for less than the maximum InBev might pay for it.
I do think the current board hasn’t exactly endeared itself to the shareholders with many of their actions to date. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some significant votes against them. The big money wants a deal to get done.
Mike, paying $65 a share for AB is not stealing. By some analysts it may even be overpaying. Regardless, there is nothing morally wrong with InBev’s attempt to buy the company. I would suggest retreating from the high horse. Where is your anger over the sale of the Chrysler building to Abu Dhabi interests?
I think Paul’s comments make the most sense.
All emotion aside, maybe this will be a good thing in the long run. In the short run there will be a hit to our collective st. louis pride. But if Inbev can grow this brand like AB failed to do over the last ten years…then we can all be winners. As for protecting an american company. It seems a bit hypocritical to go to Iraq in an effort to spread democracy and at the same time crying foul when a foreign company takes over an american company within the rules created by our own democratic government. Wise up and stop being so parochial! This current management is the sam management as ever. Just with another Busch family member to scoop up more money and underperform. Giving management a “chance” is not what a corporation should focus on. Shareholder value should be the focus. Future potential performance never trumps money in your hand. My vote is YES.
A lot of You are letting the $65/share blind you, or You have bought into Brito’s hype. Let’s see what Carlos and His boys have done just in the last week or so.
- They have a hand picked board READY, BEFORE they file papers with the SEC. (You do know that if they get their people in place they could HYPOTHETICALLY, change their bid from $65 cash to say $35+share of Inbev. Or whatever. At that point We could of course turn the offer down, but then still be stuck with that board, and a handcuffed company. And then when Inbev comes back a 3-6 months later with a bid of say $57 cash, we’d all have to jump on it.)
- They’ve either lied about the promise to make St. Louis their North American Headquarters, (this is in reference to their operations in Cuba, and possible violation of the Helms-Burton Act, Cuban Assets Control Regulations, and the Trading With the Enemy Act ), or they believed that they could sneak this one in through the “backdoor”. In either case it brings to light the deceitful side of Brito and Inbev that We have all read and heard about, from their previous acquisitions.
I do believe as shareholders that these are NOT the kind of people We want conducting our business.
I will never drink another AB product if this deal goes through, period
This is a travesty for st. louis. Our politicians, family and the Board should be deeply shamed. Go down fighting if nothing else. Next, Microsoft. The rules of the market dictate the end, but it consists of players at all times. The U.S. will accept the nominal price increases or adjustments that must be made for the company to stay here. Now we need help. Anyone home. Mcfly? Don’t roll over on this one.
R, Marcus, and hreggie, the three economic stooges!