Form 8.5 (EPT/RI)-Anexo Group plc
FORM 8.5 (EPT/RI)
PUBLIC DEALING DISCLOSURE BY AN EXEMPT PRINCIPAL TRADER WITH RECOGNISED INTERMEDIARY STATUS DEALING IN A CLIENT-SERVING CAPACITY Rule 8.5 of the Takeover Code (the 'Code')
1. KEY INFORMATION
(a) Name of exempt principal trader:
Investec Bank plc
(b) Name of offeror/offeree in relation to whose relevant securities this form relates: Use a separate form for each offeror/offeree
Anexo Group plc
(c) Name of the party to the offer with which exempt principal trader is connected:
Investec is Financial Adviser to DBAY
(d) Date dealing undertaken:
22nd April 2025
(e) In addition to the company in 1(b) above, is the exempt principal trader making disclosures in respect of any other party to this offer? If it is a cash offer or possible cash offer, state 'N/A'
N/A
2. DEALINGS BY THE EXEMPT PRINCIPAL TRADER
Where there have been dealings in more than one class of relevant securities of the offeror or offeree named in 1(b), copy table 2(a), (b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) for each additional class of relevant security dealt in.
The currency of all prices and other monetary amounts should be stated.
(a) Purchases and sales
Class of relevant security
Purchases/ sales
Total number of securities
Highest price per unit paid/received
Lowest price per unit paid/received
Ordinary shares
Sales
13,879
59
51.5
(b) Cash-settled derivative transactions
Class of relevant security
Product description e.g. CFD
Nature of dealing e.g. opening/closing a long/short position, increasing/reducing a long/short position
Number of reference securities
Price per unit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(c) Stock-settled derivative transactions (including options)
(i) Writing, selling, purchasing or varying
Class of relevant security
Product description e.g. call option
Writing, purchasing, selling, varying etc.
Number of securities to which option relates
Exercise price per unit
Type e.g. American, European etc.
Expiry date
Option money paid/ received per unit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(ii) Exercise
Class of relevant security
Product description e.g. call option
Exercising/ exercised against
Number of securities
Exercise price per unit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(d) Other dealings (including subscribing for new securities)
Class of relevant security
Nature of dealing e.g. subscription, conversion
Details
Price per unit (if applicable)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. OTHER INFORMATION
(a) Indemnity and other dealing arrangements
Details of any indemnity or option arrangement, or any agreement or understanding, formal or informal, relating to relevant securities which may be an inducement to deal or refrain from dealing entered into by the exempt principal trader making the disclosure and any party to the offer or any person acting in concert with a party to the offer: Irrevocable commitments and letters of intent should not be included. If there are no such agreements, arrangements or understandings, state 'none'
None
(b) Agreements, arrangements or understandings relating to options or derivatives
Details of any agreement, arrangement or understanding, formal or informal, between the exempt principal trader making the disclosure and any other person relating to: (i) the voting rights of any relevant securities under any option; or (ii) the voting rights or future acquisition or disposal of any relevant securities to which any derivative is referenced: If there are no such agreements, arrangements or understandings, state 'none'
None Date of disclosure:
23rd April 2025
Contact name:
Priyali Bhattacharjee
Telephone number:
+91 9768034903
Public disclosures under Rule 8 of the Code must be made to a Regulatory Information Service.
The Panel's Market Surveillance Unit is available for consultation in relation to the Code's dealing disclosure requirements on +44 (0)20 7638 0129.
The Code can be viewed on the Panel's website at www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk.Sign in to access your portfolio
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Is it possible to boost the US birth rate? Here's what other countries have tried
(NEXSTAR) – The Trump administration is reportedly seeking ways to raise the American birth rate, considering incentives ranging from a $5,000 cash 'baby bonus' to a 'National Medal of Motherhood' awarded to women with more than six children. Would a trophy or tax break be enough to convince Americans to have more children? Countries around the world with plummeting birth rates have test driven all sorts of strategies to promote procreating, and it turns out it's a tough task. People and policymakers may want to boost the birth rate for a variety of reasons, from cultural to economic. The primary economic concern is that if a country's birth rate drops too low, and there isn't enough immigration to bring in younger workers, the country will be left with an aging population that needs support but a smaller tax base of workers to support them. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports the U.S. birth rate dropped to 1.6 children per woman in 2023 – a new historic low. To be at replacement levels, the birth rate would have to be a bit higher at 2.1. That's generally accepted as the level at which each generation ensures it replaces itself. While the U.S. birth rate is lower than it has ever been before, it's still higher than our North American neighbors to the north and dozens of other countries around the world. Canada's fertility rate is at 1.3, according to World Bank Data. Any countries around Europe and Asia have rates that are even lower, including Italy (1.2), Spain (1.1), Japan (1.2) and Korea (0.7). Australia and New Zealand also have fertility rates lower than the United States'. The U.S. is far from the first country to show concern over a shrinking population. Singapore, which has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, has tried doling out sizable cash incentives. Couples get the equivalent of about $8,500 for their first and second children, CNBC reports, and $10,000 for their third child and beyond. Those bonuses don't go very far, however, with Singapore's ultra-high cost of living. The cost of raising a child isn't cheap here either. LendingTree recently estimated it costs about $29,000 a year. 'The one-time bonuses are definitely not very effective, and that's pretty widely shown,' Karen Benjamin Guzzo, director of UNC's Carolina Population Center, told PBS. For what it's worth, Singapore has also tried some less conventional routes. They once got desperate enough to make a PSA (complete with a song) encouraging couples to do their 'civic duty' by getting busy in the bedroom and 'letting their patriotism explode.' In Japan, where the fertility rate is dropping faster than projected, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has described the situation as 'a silent emergency.' The government has promised to promote more flexible working environments and other measures that would help married couples to balance work and parenting, especially in rural areas where family values tend to be more conservative and harder on women. The younger generation isn't just reluctant to have kids, but also to get married due to bleak job prospects, a high cost of living and a gender-biased corporate culture that adds extra burdens for women and working mothers, experts say. While cash incentives and catchy songs haven't proven very effective at convincing people around the world to have children, one thing experts believe might work is cheap or free childcare. In a report last year, the U.S. Department of Labor described childcare as 'an almost prohibitive expense.' Even in affordable states, child care costs thousands of dollars a year. In pricier coastal communities, the median cost of infant care tops $30,000 a year. Though it's hard to predict if it would be a silver bullet, easing the child care cost burden – or completely eliminating it – is 'probably the thing that is most likely to have the impact on birth rates,' Guzzo said. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Are Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc.'s (NYSE:HVT) Mixed Financials The Reason For Its Gloomy Performance on The Stock Market?
With its stock down 10% over the past three months, it is easy to disregard Haverty Furniture Companies (NYSE:HVT). We, however decided to study the company's financials to determine if they have got anything to do with the price decline. Long-term fundamentals are usually what drive market outcomes, so it's worth paying close attention. Specifically, we decided to study Haverty Furniture Companies' ROE in this article. Return on equity or ROE is a key measure used to assess how efficiently a company's management is utilizing the company's capital. Put another way, it reveals the company's success at turning shareholder investments into profits. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Return on equity can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Haverty Furniture Companies is: 7.0% = US$21m ÷ US$305m (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). The 'return' refers to a company's earnings over the last year. One way to conceptualize this is that for each $1 of shareholders' capital it has, the company made $0.07 in profit. See our latest analysis for Haverty Furniture Companies So far, we've learned that ROE is a measure of a company's profitability. We now need to evaluate how much profit the company reinvests or "retains" for future growth which then gives us an idea about the growth potential of the company. Generally speaking, other things being equal, firms with a high return on equity and profit retention, have a higher growth rate than firms that don't share these attributes. At first glance, Haverty Furniture Companies' ROE doesn't look very promising. A quick further study shows that the company's ROE doesn't compare favorably to the industry average of 18% either. For this reason, Haverty Furniture Companies' five year net income decline of 6.9% is not surprising given its lower ROE. We believe that there also might be other aspects that are negatively influencing the company's earnings prospects. Such as - low earnings retention or poor allocation of capital. However, when we compared Haverty Furniture Companies' growth with the industry we found that while the company's earnings have been shrinking, the industry has seen an earnings growth of 11% in the same period. This is quite worrisome. Earnings growth is a huge factor in stock valuation. What investors need to determine next is if the expected earnings growth, or the lack of it, is already built into the share price. By doing so, they will have an idea if the stock is headed into clear blue waters or if swampy waters await. Is HVT fairly valued? This infographic on the company's intrinsic value has everything you need to know. Looking at its three-year median payout ratio of 29% (or a retention ratio of 71%) which is pretty normal, Haverty Furniture Companies' declining earnings is rather baffling as one would expect to see a fair bit of growth when a company is retaining a good portion of its profits. So there could be some other explanations in that regard. For instance, the company's business may be deteriorating. In addition, Haverty Furniture Companies has been paying dividends over a period of at least ten years suggesting that keeping up dividend payments is way more important to the management even if it comes at the cost of business growth. In total, we're a bit ambivalent about Haverty Furniture Companies' performance. Even though it appears to be retaining most of its profits, given the low ROE, investors may not be benefitting from all that reinvestment after all. The low earnings growth suggests our theory correct. With that said, we studied the latest analyst forecasts and found that while the company has shrunk its earnings in the past, analysts expect its earnings to grow in the future. To know more about the company's future earnings growth forecasts take a look at this free report on analyst forecasts for the company to find out more. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Trump Signs Ban on California EV Rules, Sparking Nationwide Reactions
President Trump has signed congressional resolutions overturning California's ability to mandate electric vehicle (EV) sales and establish its tailpipe and emissions standards via a federal waiver. Trump's resolutions immediately halt California's 2035 ban on new gas-powered car sales-a plan adopted by 11 states and Washington, D.C. In total, 17 other states representing 30% of the U.S. auto market have adopted some or all of California's stricter vehicle emissions standards. California also won't be able to enforce an increase in zero-emission heavy-duty truck sales and a low-nitrogen oxide regulation for heavy-duty highway and off-road vehicles/engines. "Today we're saving California, and we're saving our entire country from a disaster," Trump said, according to The Hill. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, announced last month that his state would go to court to protect its federal waiver allowing its own clean air rules, claiming it exists outside of the Congressional Review Act's scope, which repealed the waiver. Now, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington are among the states joining California's legal battle. In March, the Government Accountability Office said California's waivers can't be repealed under the Congressional Review Act, and the Senate parliamentarian had advised not moving forward with the act, making the Senate's decision to go against the parliamentarian extremely rare. Former President Biden's waiver allowed 80% of the new vehicles that California sells to be all-electric by 2035, with the rest being advanced plug-in hybrids. The mandate's ramp-up period included 35% of new 2026 model cars sold in the state being zero-emission, increasing to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered the Air Resources Board to craft another mandate for cars and trucks to either support its existing mandates or replace them in the case of a court loss. Newsom also instructed the board to create a public list of automakers and truck manufacturers following California's emissions rules and companies acting early to convert fleets to zero-emission trucks, "regardless of the status of those regulations under federal law," Cal Matters reports. While Trump's signings generated backlash, The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Stellantis, and other automakers, supported the president's decision, describing California's previous mandate as unachievable and something that would raise car prices. EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said, "This is nothing more than California throwing a temper tantrum because the American people don't want the state's terrible policies," according to Reuters. More than a quarter of California's new car sales are EVs, with New Jersey and New York following at 15% and 12%, respectively, The Alliance for Automotive Innovation reports. Meeting California's EV mandates would've been challenging for automakers. Still, Congress's decision to block the state from setting its emissions standards sets off a domino effect that could significantly slow EV development throughout the country. Michael Gerrard, the founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said: "The chief winners of this move are the oil industry and China. Electric vehicles are the main threat to the demand for oil, and this move further cements China as the global leader in producing electric vehicles," according to NBC. A decrease in EV adoption resulting from Congress's repeal could also pose health risks, as California stated its EV sales mandate would prevent around 1,300 cardiopulmonary deaths between 2026 and 2040. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
