You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App
Join our mailing list to receive top business news every weekday morning.

Is Prosus in trouble for selling shares?

Statement explains Prosus was not party to the decision to sell shares by Delivery Hero.
Image: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

Any late-night announcement by a listed company usually contains something interesting. It is even more interesting if it deals with share transactions during hostile take-overs and quotes a few paragraphs of legalese from the relevant stock exchange rules.

Prosus has been accused of “selling down” and trying to depress the share price of its rival in the fight to gain control of Just Eat. The Just Eat board of directors has recommended to its shareholders that they accept an offer from that will result in a merger of the two food delivery businesses rather than consider the rival cash offer from Prosus.

It raised suspicions when it emerged that a shareholder, Delivery Hero, started to sell shares quite aggressively and that Prosus holds an interest in Delivery Hero.

Prosus responded on Monday night with a statement to say that it does not control Delivery Hero or its investment decisions. “Prosus had not disclosed its interest in making an offer for Just Eat to Delivery Hero prior to the issue of its Rule 2.7 announcement,” reads the statement.

It added that Delivery Hero confirmed this in a separate statement. “The decision to sell down was taken by Delivery Hero’s management board independently in September 2019. Delivery Hero had no knowledge of Prosus’ contemplated offer to acquire Just Eat prior to the publication of the offer,” says the Delivery Hero statement.

Prosus also points out that shares of most companies in the broader food delivery sector, including that of Delivery Hero itself, traded lower between Delivery Hero’s announcement of its share selling and the announcement by Prosus of the cash offer to buy Just Eat.

The rules and regulations quoted by Prosus in its statement deals with disclosing shareholdings when a company makes an offer to buy another listed company and the time frame in which the disclosures must be made.

There is no mention of “related parties”or “parties acting in concert” in the piece of rules quoted in the Prosus statement.

The listing of Prosus in Amsterdam will, in time, teach SA investors and analysts a few things about Holland’s listing regulations. But we can assume that it would not be much different to JSE rules, which look closely at shareholdings of related parties and their voting decisions when it comes to takeovers and mergers.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


these valuations remind me of WebVan and 1999. Billions of euro companies whose essential value proposition is one day (maybe) making money on delivering other people’s food. Dischem does not realize that their scrip delivery motorbike fleet is worth twice their shops man!

This lot and uber and lyft and taxify and 20 others will fall over each other to do it for less and less because their value proposition is, like dude, not like mere money. It is about building an AI customer repository of behavioral preferences which they will monetize to food companies (them that actually make food and money) by intermediating themselves as a global platform for convenience food and obviously beverages and clothes and and and

Except Webvan was a spectacular $300 million dollar mess – on these modern unicorns the investment banking fees are $300 million. Two or three cases like that fraud WeWork and a big respected and admired SoftBank or Prosus has its NAV (management valuations not to be confused with tangible nav) called hot air and the fun run starts.

Quite! But in the meantime, the IPO hipsters are walking away with billions … an interesting watch on Netflix (a newbie which actually does produce a workable product) is Inside Bill’s Brain – decoding Bill Gates.

Interesting concept this surge in food delivery operations. It is much easier in a country like China where food and labour are generally cheaper and with less administration.

It is much different in countries like Germany (Lieferando and Delivery Hero). The drivers are more expensive too and the app take a larger chunk from the restaurants.

As a Naspers and now Prosus investor, I am just wondering if are they going in the right direction with this within the EU market.

They are not really creating something innovative, and that is something to be seen in the future.

Prosus should be worried about the possible insider trade(s) that shorted the Tencent share in August. Something fishy here. See the Moneyweb article entitled Pitting Tencent against Alibaba… the graph is amazingly telling. In my opinion.

Karma is a beech. This whole thing of Tencent and Prosus making hostile takeover bids is going to hurt them even more. The people that put in the sweat and tears to build their delivery company have the right to decide whether to accept a buyout offer or not. I don’t care how things are done and what is acceptable between a band of corporate pirates. They remain pirates nonetheless. Bob van Dijk has lost my respect by trying to grow his company on the foundations of this type of action. So, let’s watch and see how much his companies are going to lose. He has already lost more than the inherent value of this delivery company hijacking he is attempting. Karma is a beech.

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: