Statement from the Board of Unilever

[Breelander]

Where on earth did they get this?

They credit it (if that's the right word) to Nick Potts/PA.

https://twitter.com/nickpotts_pa?lang=en

Taken in 2011...

https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.10190508

[idpickering]

Unilever decision forces Dutch government to review controversial tax break

The Netherlands’ coalition government will “reconsider” a controversial tax break designed to attract foreign businesses to the country after Unilever scrapped a planned move from London to Rotterdam.

https://www.ft.com/content/1f7c053c-c8a ... 390057b8c9

Moderator Message:
This is a subscription service. To read the article use a search engine with the above quote. Raptor.

[Itsallaguess]

Almost completely off-topic, but take a look at the photograph the Guardian used to illustrate this story;

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... etherlands

It looks like a marketing photo, except taken in a really scabby kitchen, with decor out of your granny's flat in the 80s, washed-out lighting, dirty grout, and dodgy looking sockets. But the products look reasonably modern.

Where on earth did they get this? It can't be from Unilever. It looks as though they got the office junior to search through their cupboards for any Unilever products they could find and snap it on their phone. Bizarre.

The earliest use of the stock photo I can find is from this article from 13th October 2016 -

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/whats-on/shopping/marmitegate-twitter-reacts-stand-between-12019469

The picture in the article above is marked - Products made by Unilever (Image: Nick Potts/PA Wire)

If anyone is interested, I found this out by using the great reverse-image-search website linked below -

https://www.tineye.com/

You can upload a picture, and it'll search the internet to see where it's been used, presumably by using some advanced algorithms because it can be really good at finding results from all sorts of often poor quality images.

The results for this particular image were gathered by the website searching 31.5 billion images, from which it found 24 results, the oldest of which was from the 13th of October 2016.

I think you're right about it being taken in his Grandmother's house, mind....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Wizard]

Unilever decision forces Dutch government to review controversial tax break

The Netherlands’ coalition government will “reconsider” a controversial tax break designed to attract foreign businesses to the country after Unilever scrapped a planned move from London to Rotterdam.

https://www.ft.com/content/1f7c053c-c8a ... 390057b8c9

Moderator Message:
This is a subscription service. To read the article use a search engine with the above quote. Raptor.

I suspect that has put the causality the wrong way round. Much more likely Unilever were pre informed of this and knew the risk of withholding tax staying in place would scupper the plan. No such thing as coincidence IMHO.

Terry.

[ayshfm1]

Changing the longstanding arrangements for Unilever was never going to generate proportionate shareholder value.

Having been compelled to look at Polman in more detail it became clear he doesn't actually view his job as serving shareholders. He always said he had a much wider remit. His first act was to kill off quarterly reporting and to state he would not be a slave to the shareholders (he thought there was an outside possibility he'd get the sack on his first day). He should have (IMHO), because he wasn't he was emboldened to operate the company in way that did not maximise shareholder returns and hence invited the Kraft bid.

[Arborbridge]

I read the board's statement and just assumed it was the usual face-saving guff; the idea is dead in the water and would take a substantial turn of events for them to resurrect it.

I do wonder though, whether we will get our schadenfreude comeuppance if, without the extra protection that a purely Dutch company would have had, we lose our Unilever shares to the next corporate takeover attempt?

VRD
(who voted against)

I wonder too.... From my POV this was an imporant argument for voting in favour, though eventually I voted against. I'm not in the "bring it on" camp and would prefer ULVR to remain a European company, not a US one. I can't see any happy outcome for either the UK or Europe if we lose yet another jewel across the Atlantic.

If it happens, however, from a purely selfish POV, I doubt it will make much difference to my HYP and may even be beneficial if the take out price does not collapse from here - the average yield will rise.

Arb.

[ayshfm1]

I think the takeover argument never flew, 60% IS in Holland and hence already enjoys immunity from hostile takeover. Unilever could only be taken out if the board recommended it and the shareholders agreed.

[Gengulphus]

I wonder too.... From my POV this was an imporant argument for voting in favour, though eventually I voted against. I'm not in the "bring it on" camp and would prefer ULVR to remain a European company, not a US one. I can't see any happy outcome for either the UK or Europe if we lose yet another jewel across the Atlantic.

Why on earth do you think that giving a US bidder a neatly-packaged-up-under-one-parent-company Unilever to target with a takeover bid makes it any more difficult for them to take it over??? I'd say that on the contrary, it makes it much easier than taking over both of two separate parent companies, that are tied together under a mesh of legal agreements. In particular, as things stand any takeover would have to be subject to a host of conditions that said takeovers of both of the parent companies would have to separately succeed, one under UK law and the other under Dutch law, otherwise neither would go ahead. Otherwise there would be the risk of one takeover succeeding and the other not, producing a serious mess that would be totally unacceptable both to any bidder and to any government (assuming at least some modicum of sanity in all cases, of course, but the chances of a bidder, the UK government and the Dutch government simultaneously being that insane are totally negligible IMHO).

If one takes the view that Unilever must be protected against a US takeover at any price (I don't - I'd want a very good price, but that's not totally impossible), that seems to me to be a clear argument to vote against any proposal to unify the company under one parent company. If such unification had to be done for some reason (e.g. a change in the relevant company law that effectively outlawed such structures) and it became a question of unifying under a Dutch parent company or a UK parent company, then it might well (*) become an argument in favour of the Dutch parent company, but that's a different question - and a very hypothetical one at present.

(*) By the way, I say "might well" merely because I don't know Dutch company law and its requirements for takeovers well enough to have any view of my own on how difficult taking over a Dutch company is. By others' accounts that I have read, it is more difficult than taking over a UK company, but I always take others' accounts with at least a pinch of salt...

Gengulphus