Very interesting, as Sargeant Schultz used to say.
It’s very hard to tell from the announcement what they’re buying into – the combined US retail/auction business, just the U.S. auction part or “Acker Merrall & Condit Asia Ltd.”
I don’t understand why someone would buy in, and wear the unknown potential legal liabilities. Are they getting an indemnification from the sellers? What is there of value that can’t just be hired away/poached from them?
If Madison is buying a 45% share and will appoint two of the five board seats, who owns the remaining 55% and gets to appoint the remaining 3 seats on the board?
And if it’s Acker, doesn’t their majority position mean that they remain in control? In other words, Madison isn’t really buying Acker, Acker is bringing them on as a junior partner?
The linked article didn’t provide much information one way or the other.
The proposed expansion of the Group’s business into upstream activities, in synergy with our existing engagement downstream, will ensure a sufficient supply of products and increase our distribution channels
Does this mean end to end counterfeiting or perhaps a ‘direct to consumer’ operation for fakes.