MWB Group Share Discussion Threads

[wskill] 29/10/2011 13:41

See EK has given MWB a mention in his blog today .

[scburbs] 29/9/2011 18:20

The terms of the junior tranches of the new bank facility confirm (if there was ever any doubt) that the interest rate on the loan notes is not inappropriate. The new arrangements with the minority shareholder in Malmaison incentivise an exit of this business asap (or to sell enough which together with the profit on selling MBE will be enough to buy out the preferred shares).

If these arrangements were any more convoluted then New Zealand could find itself suffering from a shortage of sheep to shear!

1. The major part of the facility, £208.6 million ("Facility A"), will be provided by the Banks and carries annual interest of 3.8% above LIBOR with a maturity date of 31 December 2014 and will reduce to £135.2 million following completion of the Sales;

2. A further tranche of £35.6 million ("Facility B"), to be provided by the Banks, carries annual interest of 5.0% above LIBOR (which in certain circumstances increases to 10% per annum above LIBOR) with a maturity date of 31 December 2014 (and a redemption premium payable in certain circumstances sufficient to generate an IRR of 15%) will reduce to £23.4 million following completion of the Sales;

3. A third tranche, amounting to £33.3 million ("Facility C") is being provided by Riverland and carries annual interest of 5.0% above LIBOR with a maturity date of 31 January 2013 and a redemption premium varying between an IRR of 17.5% to 27.5% inclusive of interest (depending on whether Facility C is repaid before or after 31 December 2011),will reduce to £19.0 million following completion of the Sales. In addition, Riverland has made a conditional commitment to offer Malmaison a mezzanine facility available for a period from 31 January 2013 until 31 December 2014 of up to £20 million to repay Facility C."

[williamgtheobald] 18/9/2011 22:27

Gentleman sorry if these are stupid questions but;-
1) Does anyone know whether MWB has managed to get its bank finance approved, I know they increased the year end as they were still negotiating the terms.
2) Is the bid for MBE still taking place – again things have gone quiet.

[markt] 25/8/2011 09:45

...(one of the people that ha benefitted from the Loan Stock interest rate is/was a Mr Latilla/Campbell....bought around 60k worth.....
he is associated to one of the Non/execs. of MWB...Mr David C Marshall
they are both directors of Ind. Commercial Holdings Ltd....
and a Latilla Campbell was on the board of LFI for around 30 years..., probably Mr L-C senior

the loan notes appear to be effectively warrants....but that receive a high dividend.

the loan note holders have probably seen the return of all of their investment cost via the dividends paid over last X years, and they can still convert if they want to...

-------

MWB seems to be converting assetts to cash....but paying 7-8%.....
MWB had around 500M of assetts on its books before this recent process....
...at 7-8% MWB does not appear to me to be earning enough from the assetts....

EBITDA was I think 26M. for the hotels...perhaps 5% return from the assetts
....if it sold all hotels it wouldnt have enough income to pay the lease costs, sale and lease back...

if sell around 200-300M to pay off bank debt....then it will be left with nett assetts....but the income from those nett assetts will be needed imo to pay the lease costs they have contracted....in which case perhaps the nett assetts have little or no value for shareholders since the income may be pre/assigned to pay the lease costs contracted....of other hotels sold and leased back...

or there could be nett assetts for shareholders at the end of the process...

if they juggle with the numbers then maybe they can make a difference somewhere...could easily end up with very little left for shareholders imo....especially if a small reduction in hotel occupancy...

the sale and leaseback deals look to be being done just to keep the banks happy....since are trying to arrange new banking arrangments...and maybe the bank has said, no , not unless you reduce the risk for the bank...and provide better assetts coverage %...

[markt] 06/8/2011 21:27

so...is it correct that the loan note holders have now approx. had all of their initial investment cost returned to them the interest payments

including the directors and their vehicle

is it now 10 years at 10% interest..or

and I assume that the loan notes are convertible....
and have a prior claim on assetts before shareholders...

so ....are the loan notes....effectively special shares that pay a divi of 10 %
and in a wind up would get paid first....
and if the shares do OK then they can convert and make money from the shares as well

------

Are shareholders being taken advantage of...by loan notes holders......which includes the directors vehicle....

and parties related to directors eg. to Mr David C.Marshall..namely MR Latilla Campbell whose family has been involved with LFI for over 30 zears ...and the 2 are directors at ICH PLC, ind. comm. hlds)

Mr D.C.Marshall is ..a non/exec. director...and Chairman of LFI which holds I think has 2M shares in MWB

do the insiders hold loan notes while the mugs hold shares

[scburbs] 21/7/2011 13:50

This transaction should be thought of more as taking on a loan at 7% interest (£6.1m/£86.8m) and removing property valuation fluctuations on those hotels from the balance sheet.

[scburbs] 21/7/2011 13:48

That isn't what the RNS says at all! The hotels are on the books at the open market value of the hotel as an operating business.

They have carved out the property element and sold that, but are retaining the operating business. Naturally, the property element alone is worth much less than the value of the hotel as an operating business.

The note implies that the transaction will be NAV accretive. I suspect the value of the hotel as a operating business is more variable than the value of the real estate element, so the NAV quality may be diluted even if the actual number increases.

"Given the effective long duration of the leases and the strength of the underlying operating business, management expect additional value to be recognised and capitalised in relation to the leases entered into pursuant to these transactions. This additional residual value has not yet been determined but management believe that, when added to the cash consideration for the Properties of £86.8 million, the total will compare favourably with the aggregate book value of the Properties at 31 December 2010 of £142.4 million."

[rj allen] 21/7/2011 13:22

Yes, it appears that the Sale and Leaseback has reduced Net Equity by £55.6 million or approx 34p per share at a stroke!

[williamgtheobald] 21/7/2011 12:40

LOOKS LIKE THE BOARD HAVE SOLD SOME PROPERTIES AT 40% OF NAV.

WELL DONE BOARD OF DIRECTORS!

[markt] 14/6/2011 18:55

The following info may be of interest to anyone unhappy with MWB/MBE....only a minor thing....but extra snipper of info perhaps to throw in the cauldron...

(recently complaints have been sent to the regulators concerning the accounts of LFI including not disclosing the value of related party transactions....
LFI is invested in MWB, 2M shares.....if I recall correctly MWB maybe even backed into an LFI/D.C.Marshall controlled company back in the 90s, before my time)



Following copied from LFI message board....I just posted there...

"ah ...interesting

Fullers Investments Ltd held, in the year to 31 Aug 2002, 67.925k in loan stock of MWB.
MWB, where LFI is invested.

The loan stock I think pays 10%....high %...

Mr Robotham was a director of MWB and of Fullers Investments. And Mr D.C.Marshall is a director of MWB....and Mr D.C.Marshall was a director of Fullers Investments Ltd at some time....

Fullers Investments had a subsidiary.....Fullers no longer exists but its subsidiary does....London Finance and Investment Corporation Ltd.

London Finance and Corporation Ltd is registered at the LFI offices.

The owner of London Finance and Corporation Ltd is also a director of a co. that WSE has a 29% stake in..where Mr Robotham and 2 Marshalls are directors.
===

Mr D.Marshall's company Registered Offices Investments Ltd made a profit of 213k in results to March 2000 and paid a dividend of 290k. 290k ! By selling
389k shares in the company where he is related to Monteagle Holdings S.A. (he is the CEO of Monteagle Marshall S.A. )

Shareholders in companies where MR D.Marshall is the chairman and controlling shareholder have seen a reduction in the value of their investment at WSE and LFI over 10-20 years. (WSE, 89p in 1995 and 45p now !, halved !!)

at the same time it looks like Mr D.Marshall has made money.
Mr Marshall is a non-exec. director of MWB.

At MWB are the directors making money while the shareholders have lost money ?
Are there similarities ??
===

I wonder if London Finance and Investment Corporation Ltd or Fullers Investments Ltd invest or invested in companies where LFI/WSE had insider knowledge ?

eg. MWB, FIF, CRE, NBI, SWL

(it bought a large amount of Loan notes as a % of its investments)

...if I had a registered office address at the same address as LFI/WSE then I would be very keen to chat with anyone who sat on the boards of these companies...even if they did not reveal any insider information....their evaluation or opinion of public information and of the accounts would be very useful info imo to input to any buy/sell investing decision.

One assumes there are many many more such related party links and deals.

===

Are the decisions for MBE and MWB being affected by personal motives/gain ?

Definitely for certain MWB directors since they are big shareholders and loan note holders in MWB.

===

I note that there are, or have been, other financial companies which operate from the same address as LFI/WSE....that are related to the directors of LFI/WSE.

Monteagle Internat. Finance
Registered Offices Investments Ltd
Conafex International Finance
London Finance and Investment Corporation Ltd
Fullers Investments Ltd (now replaced by L.F.I.C.Ltd.)

Monteagle also has companies registered in tax havens such as Virgin Islands, Jersey and Luxembourg.....if gonna make any gains in shares then it is probably worth being registered there....(Mr D.C.Marshall is non-UK resident)....

===

and noting that LFI and WSE do NOT detail every related party transaction as a separate transaction....and the value of that transaction...only total value.

I note that LFI PLC owns some property and rents it to a related party...to Monteagle.
..everywhere you look....related party transactions !

[knowing] 13/6/2011 21:15

Withdrawal of Possible Offer
TIDMRGU TIDMMBE

RNS Number : 3647I

Regus PLC

13 June 2011

NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN, INTO OR FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANY JURISDICTION WHERE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE RELEVANT LAWS OF SUCH JURISDICTION.

REGUS PLC (SOCIETE ANONYME)

("Regus")

Withdrawal of possible offer for MWB Business Exchange plc ("MBE")

Despite Regus's all-cash possible offer of 92.36 pence per share for MBE (the "Indicative Offer" or "Regus's Indicative Offer") representing a 71.3 per cent. premium over the offer made by MWB Group Holdings plc ("MWB") for MBE on 28 April 2011 ("MWB's Offer") (as at close of business on 10 June 2011), and Regus announcing on 10 June 2011 that it had dropped all of the reservations to its Indicative Offer price, whilst the Indicative Offer remained subject to confirmatory due diligence and a recommendation from the independent committee of MBE (the "Independent Committee"), Regus confirms that neither MWB nor the Independent Committee have sought to engage in meaningful discussions with Regus in relation to Regus's superior Indicative Offer. Accordingly, Regus has no choice but to withdraw its Indicative Offer for MBE and therefore announces that it does not intend to make an offer for MBE.

The refusal of MWB and the Independent Committee to engage has been despite the announcement today by Pyrrho Investment Limited ("Pyrrho"), the largest independent shareholder of MWB and MBE, that it will vote against the resolution to approve the scheme of arrangement to implement MWB's Offer (the "MWB Scheme"), which will effectively mean that the MWB Scheme cannot succeed.

Background

On 7 June 2011, Regus announced that unless (i) the Independent Committee or the board of MWB entered into discussions with Regus by 17.00 (BST) today and (ii) because the meetings had already been called, either the Independent Committee or MWB or MBE confirmed publicly that they would be seeking an adjournment of the shareholder meetings required to implement the MWB Offer, Regus would withdraw its Indicative Offer.

On 10 June 2011, Regus reaffirmed its commitment to and the seriousness of its Indicative Offer. As at the close of business on 10 June 2011, Regus's all cash Indicative Offer of 92.36 pence per MBE share represented a 71.3 per cent. premium over MWB's Offer. Regus also confirmed in that announcement that neither the Independent Committee nor the MWB board nor their respective advisers had engaged in any meaningful way with Regus to discuss the Offer.

Regus also announced on 10 June 2011 that it was improving its Indicative Offer by dropping all previously announced reservations to its Indicative Offer price. This was to reaffirm to minority shareholders of MBE, as well as to MWB and the Independent Committee, the seriousness and commitment of Regus to the Indicative Offer.

Regus also clarified that its requirement for confirmatory due diligence was a direct result of the introduction of additional information set out in MWB's announcement on 27 May 2011 and in the scheme document posted to MBE shareholders relating to inter-company guarantees and possible charges which might be introduced between MWB and MBE.

Despite the improvement in Regus's Indicative Offer and the premium of 71.3 per cent. it represents over the MWB Offer (as at close of business on 10 June 2011), neither MWB nor the Independent Committee have sought to engage with Regus. This refusal to engage has been despite Pyrrho, the largest independent shareholder in both MWB and MBE, writing to the board of MBE on 7 June 2011 to express its deep concern with decisions made by the board of MBE and announcing earlier today that it intends to vote against the resolution to approve the scheme of arrangement to implement MWB's Offer.

In the face of the continued refusal of the Independent Committee and the MWB board to engage in meaningful discussions with Regus, Regus has no option but to withdraw its Indicative Offer for MBE and now announces that it does not intend to make an offer for MBE.

Regus is disappointed that the Independent Committee has repeatedly refused to engage with Regus and continues to recommend an inferior offer from MWB, holder of approximately 72 per cent. of MBE's issued share capital. Bearing in mind the current high debt gearing in MWB, MWB's record of not having paid a dividend in 9 years and the relative illiquidity of its shares, minority shareholders in MBE may now ask themselves how long it will be before the value of their current holding in MBE attains a level equivalent to Regus's Indicative Offer.

Notes

Under Rule 2.8 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the "Code"), and except with the consent of the Takeover Panel, this statement will prevent Regus or anyone acting in concert with it from announcing an offer or possible offer for MBE or taking certain other action within the next six months unless there has occurred an event, as set out below, which enables the statement to be set aside.

For the purposes of Rule 2.8 and other relevant provisions of the Code, Regus reserves the right to announce an offer or possible offer for MBE and/or take any other action otherwise precluded under Rule 2.8 of the Code within the next six months in the event that there is a material change in circumstances or any of the following events occur:

(i) the MWB Scheme fails, is withdrawn, does not become effective or lapses, for any reason (including, without limitation, by virtue of (i) the resolutions not being passed by the relevant majorities at the shareholder meetings of MBE which have been convened to consider such resolutions (or at any adjourned meetings); (ii) the Court not sanctioning the MWB Scheme; or (iii) the MWB Scheme not becoming effective before the long-stop date set for the MWB Scheme in the scheme document sent to MBE shareholders on 27 May 2011, and with the agreement or recommendation of the independent directors of MBE or the board of MBE, as the case may be;

(ii) if MWB change their offer structure from a scheme of arrangement to an offer and that offer lapses, is withdrawn, fails to become unconditional in accordance with its terms, or does not succeed for any other reason, and with the agreement or recommendation of the independent directors of MBE or the board of MBE, as the case may be;

(iii) a third party (other than MWB) announces an offer for MBE;

(iv) a third party announces an offer or possible offer for MWB; or

(v) MBE or a third party announces a "whitewash" proposal (as described in Note 1 of the Notes on Dispensation from Rule 9 of the Code) or a reverse takeover (as described in Note 2 to Rule 3.2 of the Code).

Enquiries:

[knowing] 13/6/2011 11:20

So MWB would get 72% of £60M if the deal goes through at current prices. Makes this look quite a buy.

[markt] 13/6/2011 11:17

...well, my guess that Pyrro might take some action if rules were being broken ...turned out to be right...RNS from them today....

looks like sale of MBE to highest bidder may now be in play

[markt] 12/6/2011 18:50

...let me continue from my post...

Mr D.C.Marshall is one of the MWB directors...
...a life long contact of his has 67k in loan notes of MWB (Mr Latilla Campbell) (or had in 2002, ref. accounts of his company Fullers Investments))

Mr Robotham is also a director of that company and of LFI PLC and of MWB in 2002 and Mr R was an associate of JM Finn broker for many years....
and one assumes that Mr R has a group of clients that he manages their investments on a discretionary basis......

as a director of LFI Corp. Ltd (not LFI plc) one assumes that Mr R thought the loan notes were a good investment...
Mr D.C. Marshall sits on the board (and did then)...so one assumes that Mr R could have got his opinion if he wanted,

so....other contacts or clients of Mr R could well own loan notes and/or shares in MWB. And/or contacts of Mr D.C.Marshall or family trusts...

and LFI owns 2M shares in MWB.

so..my point, finally !.....that various of the people involved could have their own axe to grind in the MBE/MWB take over offer situation..and perhaps with links to MWB/MBE directors...

[markt] 12/6/2011 17:55

Simon Caulkwell
you mentioned suing
I would assume that Regus and/or Pyhro, as large holders, would consider to sue if Regus is making a real offer that is higher and it is rejected without just legal cause...
...or at least make a lot of noise even if they decide against legal costs...

===

You have any view on CPR ?!

[markt] 12/6/2011 17:45

The following info may be of interest to anyone unhappy with MWB/MBE....only a minor thing....but extra snipper of info perhaps to throw in the cauldron...

(recently complaints have been sent to the regulators concerning the accounts of LFI including not disclosing the value of related party transactions....
LFI is invested in MWB, 2M shares.....if I recall correctly MWB maybe even backed into an LFI/D.C.Marshall controlled company back in the 90s, before my time)



Following copied from LFI message board....I just posted there...

"ah ...interesting

Fullers Investments Ltd held, in the year to 31 Aug 2002, 67.925k in loan stock of MWB.
MWB, where LFI is invested.

The loan stock I think pays 10%....high %...

Mr Robotham was a director of MWB and of Fullers Investments. And Mr D.C.Marshall is a director of MWB....and I thought that perhaps Mr D.C.Marshall had been a director of Fullers Investments Ltd at some time.

Fullers Investments had a subsidiary.....Fullers no longer exists but its subsidiary does....London Finance and Corporation Ltd.

London Finance and Corporation Ltd is registered at the LFI offices.

The owner of London Finance and Corporation Ltd is also a director of a co. that WSE has a 29% stake in..where Mr Robotham and 2 Marshalls are directors.

===

The size of Fullers Inv. Ltd is quite big relative to LFI.
Funds of 2.8M in 2002. approx. 1/3 of the size of LFI PLC.

===

I wonder if London Finance and Corporation Ltd or Fullers Investments Ltd invest or invested in companies where LFI/WSE had insider knowledge ?

eg. MWB, FIF, CRE, NBI, SWL

...if I had a registered office address at the same address as LFI/WSE I would be very keen to chat with anyone who sat on the boards of these companies...even if they did not reveal any insider information....their evaluation or opinion of public information and of the accounts would be very useful info imo to input to any buy/sell investing decision.

===

I note that there are, or have been, other financial companies which operate from the same address as LFI/WSE....that are related to the directors of LFI/WSE.

Monteagle Internat. Finance
Registered Offices Investments Ltd
Conafex International Finance


Monteagle also has companies registered in tax havens such as Virgin Islands, Jersey and Luxembourg.....if gonna make any gains in shares then it is probably being registered there....(Mr D.C.Marshall is non-UK resident)....

===

I would assume that London Finance and Corporation Ltd could not rent office space to LFI PLC or Monteagle Marshall without that being disclosed in the accounts......( London Finance and Corporation Ltd owns some property)

but noting that LFI and WSE do NOT detail every related party transaction as a separate transaction....and the value of that transaction...only total value.

I note that LFI PLC owns some property and rents it to a related party...to Monteagle. So, if London Finance and Corp. rented to a related or linked party it would not be a surprise even if the regulations did not require it to be reported.

Ah, a penny has dropped...regards an error in the accounts of a subsidiary...perhaps a property transaction could be the reason for that 'error'...so that no requirement to disclose related party transaction.....perhaps...
..spider's web..."

[simon cawkwell] 10/6/2011 13:25

Gentlemen,

If I were a MWB shareholder I would be livid were Balfour-Lynn to turn down the Regus offer. Indeed, I would contemplate suing him.

I need hardly add that the independent directors of MBE are craven dregs.

Simon Cawkwell

[knowing] 10/6/2011 13:06

Nice cup and handle forming. If it works out then target price is 70p

[knowing] 10/6/2011 12:10

TIDMRGU TIDMMWB TIDMMBE

RNS Number : 2419I

Regus PLC

10 June 2011

NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN, INTO OR FROM ANY JURISDICTION WHERE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE RELEVANT LAWS OR REGULATIONS OF THAT JURISDICTION

10 June 2011

REGUS PLC (SOCIETE ANONYME) ("Regus")

REGUS REAFFIRMS ITS OFFER VALUING MWB BUSINESS EXCHANGE PLC ("MBE") AT GBP60M, SUBJECT ONLY TO CONFIRMATORY DUE DILIGENCE

This is an announcement falling under Rule 2.4 of the Takeover Code (the "Code"). It does not represent a firm intention to make an offer under Rule 2.5 of the Code. Accordingly, there can be no certainty that any offer will ultimately be made.

-- Regus reaffirms commitment to and seriousness of its all-cash offer for MBE

-- Regus continues to believe that its offer is far superior to that of MWB

-- Regus is disappointed that the Independent Committee and the MWB board and their advisers continue to refuse to engage with Regus contrary to their recent misleading announcements

-- Regus is now improving its offer by dropping all previously announced reservations, subject to confirmatory due diligence

Regus has noted the announcements made by MWB Group Holdings plc ("MWB") on 8 June 2011 and MBE's Independent Committee on 9 June 2011 and can confirm that it remains committed to its offer for all of the issued share capital of MBE for cash consideration of 92.36 pence per MBE share (the "Offer" or "Regus's Offer"). Regus can confirm that neither the Independent Committee nor the MWB board nor their respective advisers have engaged in any meaningful way with Regus to discuss the Offer.

Value and seriousness of Regus's Offer

Regus's all-cash Offer of 92.36 pence per MBE share represents a 70.6 per cent. premium to the offer made by MWB on 28 April 2011 ("MWB's Offer"). Regus reiterates that its all-cash Offer for MBE is serious. In contrast, Regus notes that MWB's Offer is not only significantly inferior to Regus's Offer, but also that in the scheme documentation relating to MWB's Offer it has been disclosed that the MWB group's funding with Lloyds Banking Group is still conditional. As Regus has previously noted, the MWB group's net debt for the period to 31 December 2010 stood at GBP301.7 million (as disclosed by MWB in its Interim Statement dated 28 April 2011).

Engagement with MBE

As announced by MBE, Regus can confirm that Mark Dixon did meet with two members of the Independent Committee, Malcolm Murray and Rick Aspland-Robinson, on 11 May 2011. However, what was not disclosed by neither the Independent Committee nor MWB in their respective announcements was that this sole meeting lasted less than 5 minutes allowing Malcolm Murray and Rick Aspland-Robinson to tell Mark Dixon that MWB would not accept Regus's Offer and that they would not engage with Regus.

Regus therefore asserts that despite the misleading announcements made by MWB and the Independent Committee, both parties and their respective advisers have refused to engage in any serious fashion at all.

Conditionality of Regus's Offer

Regus can confirm that its Offer is pre-conditional only on a recommendation from the Independent Committee and limited confirmatory due diligence. As previously stated, Regus would obviously also require the support of MWB given its shareholding in MBE.

As mentioned in the Independent Committee's announcement on 9 June 2011, Regus has had access to diligence information made available by MBE and as a result of that due diligence work was able to present its Offer to MBE. However, as a result of the introduction of additional information set out in MWB's announcement on 27 May 2011 and in the scheme document posted to MBE shareholders relating to inter-company guarantees and possible charges which might be introduced between MWB and MBE, Regus requires confirmatory due diligence.

Subject to this confirmatory due diligence, Regus is now dropping all previously announced reservations to its Offer price.

Regus has previously requested that the Independent Committee partially release Regus from the confidentiality agreement dated 15 March 2011 so that it can better explain its Offer to the independent shareholders of MBE. However, so far no such permission has been forthcoming.

Commitment to the Offer

While Regus remains committed to its Offer for MBE and firmly believes in the superiority of its Offer, Regus acknowledges that MWB owns approximately 72% of MBE and therefore cannot succeed in its Offer without the support of the board of MWB.

Regus will not continue to pursue a transaction which has no chance of being completed. Regus is a global company operating in over 90 countries and has many options for investment around the world.

Regus notes the open letter from MWB's and MBE's largest shareholder expressing its deep concern with decisions made by the Board of MBE.

Regus would ask the Independent Committee and MWB to properly engage with it to allow Regus to formally make its superior Offer to MBE shareholders.*

*Notes:

As announced on 7 June 2011, Regus will announce that it will not be making an offer under Rule 2.8 of the Takeover Code (the 'Code') if the Independent Committee or the MWB board do not enter into discussions with Regus by 17.00 (BST) on Monday 13 June 2011 and, because the meetings have already been called, neither the Independent Committee nor MWB or MBE have confirmed publicly that they will be seeking an adjournment of the shareholder meetings required to implement MWB's Offer.

[knowing] 10/6/2011 10:31

Good points bonio. I am not a holder but want to see this game unfold.