Matrix shareholders approve ClearView purchase
ClearView Wealth has received 100 per cent approval from the shareholders of Matrix for its purchase of the financial planning group.
In an announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange ClearView stated the offer for Matrix Holdings had closed and that conditions of the offer had been met or waived paving the way for the completion of the acquisition.
As a result of the approval Matrix shareholders will receive will receive $4.407 in cash and 8.776 ClearView shares per Matrix share, with a total amount of $7.75 million in cash and approximately 15.4 million ClearView shares set to move into the hands of Matrix shareholders.
ClearView managing director Simon Swanson said his group was pleased that shareholders, including advisers, had accepted the offer and the two groups had a good cultural fit between Matrix and ClearView Financial Advice. The merged planning businesses will have 214 advisers but ClearView said it would retain the Matrix brand after the acquisition.
Matrix chair Pieter Franzen said the merger would provide access to ClearView's resources and infrastructure and its "focus on providing quality advice and products to the market together with outstanding service and a focus on building lasting partnerships was one of the key determinants in our directors and adviser-shareholders accepting the offer".
AUTHOR
Jason Spits
Recommended for you
Clime’s disposal of advice licensee Madison “needed to happen yesterday”, managing director Michael Baragwanath has told Money Management, as he concludes a severe cost-out period at the business.
As Viola Private Wealth continues on its growth trajectory, the wealth management firm has appointed a seasoned investment professional to be its first chief investment officer.
Financial advisers who wish to implement artificial intelligence in their practices need to undergo a change in their mindset as to how they use technology.
With United Global Capital expected to constitute a substantial portion of CSLR compensation in FY25–26, what has AFCA ruled in its determinations on the company so far?
