Home / Comments and Opinions / Hotels Zadar: Jeličić-Purko failed to acquire a larger ownership package, but is not dissatisfied

Hotels Zadar: Jeličić-Purko failed to acquire a larger ownership package, but is not dissatisfied

miroslav jeličić purko
miroslav jeličić purko / Image by: foto

The battle for increasing ownership stakes in the company Hotels Zadar ended in a draw. After the deadlines for two – almost simultaneous – public offers for the purchase of shares of this Zadar hotelier expired, the ownership structure changed by a total of less than two percentage points.

The first public offer was made by investor Miroslav Jeličić-Purko, who offered 40 euros per share to buy fifteen thousand shares and thus increase his ownership stake in Hotels Zadar from 0.65 percent to about seven percent, becoming the largest shareholder after the family Miletić, which controlled 78.2 percent of the company’s shares. However, the Miletić family tried to prevent this, and just two weeks after his offer, in mid-April, the company Hotels Zadar also announced a counter-offer for the purchase of shares at 50 euros per share. In the end, Jeličić-Purko managed to increase his stake to only 1.27 percent, while the Miletić family increased theirs to 79.26 percent.

– I am not dissatisfied with the offer because approximately eight percent of the free float was purchased, and in the counter-offer, about a thousand shares were bought, which is very similar to my offer, so the benefit was brought to all shareholders. It should be taken into account that there is a very wide number of shareholders with very few shares. Namely, about seven hundred shareholders have about ten thousand shares, many small shareholders sold. On the other hand, in the counter-offer, shares were purchased in a transparent manner, according to the same criteria for all shareholders, although it is questionable whether the Management had the authority for such a purchase, which we will review. Shares that were previously purchased were bought in a non-transparent manner and at an unknown price, and the contracts were not in the auditor’s report, which is an obligation. Furthermore, companies connected with the director and the chairman of the Supervisory Board also exploited their position by buying shares partly in the treasury and partly in related companies – commented Jeličić-Purko on the outcome.

Tagged: