Hmmm Panther you make it seem like this meeting is ALL about the Panthers JV and nothing else firstly. You are also dramatising it to suggest if the Proposal is approved that the JV will sell the Panthers assets and not the entire Investment Fund....unless Panthers can come up with the money.
I think it is you reading into the proposal the wrong way in order to overdramatise and not provide the LU readers the full story to suit a personal agenda.
The proposal which relates to Panthers suggests that SHOULD the Panthers WANT to purchase back their property they have the RIGHT do so at Market Value.
Under section 4.4.2 it says that under the terms of the JV agreement between the Fund and PRLC, a change in ownership of the RE may trigger a right for PRLC to acquire the funds interest at market value.
So what that clause suggests to me is, that if the Investment Fund was to change hands, PRLC had a clause in the JV agreement which suggested that PRLC could potentially buy back the property at market value.
The clause goes on to say that the value per AAS is $86m, 36% of the total fund. If PDRLC envokes its right to buy back the property, an independent expert will provide market value and that income will be used to reduce the debt facility of the Investment Fund.
There is nowhere in this proposal which suggest the Fund will sell on specific Panthers assets. There is nothing in this proposal which has any kind of impact on Panthers that they can't envoke themselves if they believe they are in a position to buy back the investment.
In the proposal there is even a "Why don't you agree with proposal" as a risk that PRLC would buy BACK the investment, suggesting that if PRLC envokes this right that it will dilute the investment fund. That suggests that they have NO interest in selling if PRLC does not envoke the proposal to buy-back.
So while there is a proposal to sell the entire Investment Fund to an entity who IMO have more experience with property funds than ING, there is nothing to suggest that the Panthers assets will be sold indepdently. On the flip side there is the risk to the investment fund that Panthers actually buy-back the property at market value as a result of the transfer of RE. This would result in a dilution of the Investment Funds worth....so it is not in the best interest to sell on the assets.
The biggest risk for mine in ING is that the debt facility of the fund is in excess of $120m.
In my opinion if Panthers has the capacity to do so, I'd envoke that right and buy back the value of the land.
But changes to the constitution which are also proposed also provide a facility to buy-back at a later date.
So let us not be fooled Panther...the agenda items for the meeting on Monday does not involve a specific discussion to sell Panthers assets and dilute the funds assets. The agenda is as follows:
1. Appointment of the new responsible entity of IEF
2. Changes to Funds constitution
The heart of the proposal is to change structure of the fund to be income generating more than anything. But as PRLC had a clause in their JV that if there is any change in the Fund structure they'd have the ability to buy back the assets...that is the only reason the PRLC assets were even part of that proposal. Don't make it out to be more of an issue than it is.
I'm all for change in the board as well. God knows I am not satisfied with the current direction.
But what I don't want, is to create a frenzy with parts of information, rather than the whole picture.
