Investorfirst to raise funds; open to acquisition talks
HUB24's parent company Investorfirst has announced it will continue with an offer to shareholders to purchase additional shares in the company as it looks to raise $10 million, rather than pursuing an unsolicited third party proposal.
The third part offer (received on 17 July) came in the form of an initial verbal approach and suggested a capital injection at a premium to the non-renounceable rights issue offer price of $0.15.
However, it became apparent the terms would be less favourable to Investorfirst than the terms of the rights offer, the company said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange on Friday.
"Not only was it highly conditional (including being subject to unspecified conditions) and incomplete - therefore making it very uncertain - the proposed pricing had changed," the statement read.
Investorfirst said it would remain open to further discussions with the third party to investigate aspects of its proposal, including a possible acquisition from that party.
The pro-rata rights issue will be on the basis of one Investorfirst share for every one share held on the record date. The $0.15 per share offer price represents a 51.6 per cent discount to the 30-day volume weighted average price, the company stated.
"On a fully subscribed basis, or following any board agreed dispersion strategy, the issue would raise a total of up to A$10,298,164 before costs," the company stated.
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
