bpost still pursuing PostNL merger proposal
Belgian’s postal operator bpost is still pursuing its proposal for a merger with the Netherland’s PostNL – PostNL has re-iterates its position 
As previously reported, bpost submitted a renewed and improved proposed offer last week – and then received a letter from PostNL on Friday (11 November) outlining why the Boards of the Netherlands operator had declined the proposal.
However, yesterday (Thursday, 17 November), bpost announced that it has “submitted a letter to the Management Board and the Supervisory Board of PostNL addressing the concerns and questions regarding the combination as expressed by PostNL in its letter dated 11 November 2016.”
bpost said that it has also provided PostNL a draft merger agreement and it has again invited the Boards of PostNL to discuss its proposal.
In the letter sent last Friday, PostNL said that its Boards were “confident” of the company’s “stand-alone strategy” – and also expressed concerns that “the proposed governance structure, composition and practice will make the combined group susceptible to Belgian political differences and not agile to effectively manage the company”.
UPDATE AT 16:00 GMT ON 18 NOVEMBER
PostNL has issued an official statement today (18 November) in which it “re-iterated its position in response to bpost’s unchanged proposal”.
The PostNL statement said: “On 17 November 2016, PostNL received a letter from bpost. bpost invited the Board of Management and Supervisory Board of PostNL (the “Boards”) to discuss its current proposal based on a draft merger agreement that bpost incorrectly suggests was almost resolved earlier this year.
“The Boards have carefully reviewed the bpost letter and the accompanying attachments, taking into consideration the interests of PostNL’s shareholders and other stakeholders. The Boards decline bpost’s invitation as they have concluded that bpost has only reconfirmed its unsolicited and conditional proposal and does not convincingly address the considerations expressed by the Boards in its rejection dated 11 November 2016.”
