Kerry Co Op Shares

A family member is a B shareholder and while I get the 75% neded to liquidate if that was put to a vote as the only deal n the table.. it may pass easier than what is proposed. The question that I have not seen any answer to is what happens the cash in co op bank and the plc shares owned by the co op. As it stands I would be recommending to vote no to the shareholder unless there is transparency on this side of deal. In the new business they will have circa 9k shareholders who have little or no interest in the business.. and they would be better off in redemption scheme with proper tax management

What time is the bus home? Would you need proof of what way you voted to get on?

this whole rush job , is a rerun of stans famous day on the leading milk price ,

People should have voted no that day and not be bounced in to the contract that we got ,

people shouldn’t be bounced in to this deal either ,

Vote no ,

There will always be a better bite of the cherry ,

The plc want your cash , the co op want a life ,

Just wait a little longer ,

It will come again , but with better terms , because if there no other alternative as ftm says , then there is just a better deal .the share holders and the milk supplier can negotiate better than what the board has continuously done for years now ,

The best deal is achieved when the seller is desperate and the milk pool stays strong and is willing to walk or not commit .

You can’t negotiate from a place of weakness ,

Everyone should sign up to the milk producer group and stand back ,

And let kerry go solo if they wish , it is only then you have a hand to play ,

Sign up and vote No for now , give yourself time .

It’s the plc that’s rushing this .

It's a very important piece of the jigsaw.

If it is to stay at 83€ as you correctly state its worth, the milk suppliers will never control the coop and will never build enough equity to pay off the shareholders on redemption. A supplier could not continue under these circumstances.

I expect the share to be worth 1€. This not only is a loss to the current shareholders, but cojld be creating a capital loss from a revenue point of view. Capital losses can be put against capital gains and can be held over against any future capital gains. Will revenue allow such a loss to be "created"?

Some numbers worth considering:

It was Straight who pointed out that 400 A shareholders each own just 1 share—let’s take him at his word. This means the remaining 2,204 A shareholders hold an average of just over €245,000 worth of co-op shares each.

Under this proposal, they’ll receive €208,000 worth of shares transferred directly into their own names. Additionally, they’ll allocate €37,000 toward buying into the new co-op, a sum they’ll retain control over and can withdraw at a later point in time.

On top of this, the average A shareholder will also receive approximately €18,000 from the milk price top-up payment.

This is serious money for the average shareholder. And while the B shareholders collectively own nearly the same number of shares as the A shareholders, there are more B shareholders—but even for them, this deal represents a huge financial opportunity.

Now, compare this to 2019, when 65.9% of shareholders voted for the cash-for-shares scheme, a deal that was ultimately used by just 7% of the shareholder base. Of those who used it, most were C shareholders who didn’t even have voting rights. Imagine if that 2019 vote had included a 5.4c/L milk price top-up—shareholders would have been breaking down the doors to vote for it. 😂😂

The truth is simple: when real money is on the table, shareholders come out overwhelmingly in favor.

The feedback from shareholder meetings has been clear—this proposal is being very well received. I’m not here to stir the pot or cause controversy—I’m just an interested observer at this point. 😂

Finally, let me clarify something for everyone else on the thread, hopefully as to avoid having to repeat it 100 times. The co-op shares being used for the JV will not be rated at the par value of €1, as is often the case with co-op shares. People will be properly compensated in time for the 15% being used for the Joint Venture. This deal is designed to deliver fair value to all shareholders.

I gave a reason in the post you replied to but I’m always very happy to answer any questions anyone has and if anyone likes feel free to message me privately and I’ll make the time to talk to anyone on the phone 😊

15% of “A” shareholders only own 1 share each.

On top of that, a large number of others only received patronage shares during the final years of the patronage share scheme, leaving them with fewer than 50 shares. These shareholders have very little to gain by voting for liquidation.

The board effectively made liquidation an impossibility by handing out 1 share each to people who didn’t own any shares to begin with.

And let’s be honest—many of the loudest voices trying to block this JV and spin-out are the same ones who’ve been hoovering up co-op shares on the grey market, funneling them into their pension funds, cashing them in through the redemption scheme, and making a killing off the backs of the rest of us. These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

It’s worth noting that these same individuals were previously accused of “intimidation” of directors as part of their efforts to block any possibility of liquidation. Make no mistake—these people would do absolutely anything to stop liquidation because they know it would undermine the strategy they’ve been using for years to profit from the system. Yet here they are, trying to convince you to vote against the JV, while protecting their own interests at all costs.

glanbia and DG would not buy in to any kerry in a jv with the suppliers owed money and no milk pool contracted ,

Yet our kerry co op will buy blind ,

They are using share holders money in a twisted scheme to buy KDI

if kerry DI was such a good investment why are buyers not Queing up ? Why is KG selling because it’s low margin ,

And if it’s such a good investment , then let the share holders buy it, they have the money , invest in it ,, run KDI and offer contracts to the farmers who want to sign up to that pool .
put your money where your mouth is ,

Ask the share holders to fully buy KDI and get their return there , then you will hear the cries .

The bigger picture here is a total lack of transparency. The co op owns liquid assets ie cash in bank and plc shares... what is happening to these. Secondly the co op board have bet the house on 5.3 shares will get this over the line.. thirdly the majority of shareholders b and c probably don't want their money being tied up in the new co op.

As I said before I will join a meeting and listen and hopefully get to ask a question as last cycle of meeting a few years ago was stage managed.. and the board lost. If there is no clarity then my recommendation would be vote no to person.. as a no vote will bring a new deal regardless of messaging from board as the plc want to exit and the board want a legacy.. so let's have them earn the legacy

why does kerry co op not put a draft milk contract out on the table now , be up front and then let people make a informed decision ?
I just can not have faith in a group that did not achieve a top up on all milk produced instead of this top up he got ,

It just shows the negotiators and leaders that we have representing us .

It just proves a point if nothing more , they don’t give must though to the milk supplier .

Didn't Kerry coop represent and finance their milk suppliers shareholders on the leading milk price...what has that got to do with the majority of Kerry coop shareholders who wouldn't gain a extra cent from that exercise.

Alright, Bellview, let me explain this to you again.

You seem to want everything to suit your own preferences, but that’s simply not how the world works. Compromise is necessary in any negotiation. Think about the Good Friday Agreement—both sides had to agree to let prisoners out of jail to reach a resolution. If someone like you had been at the table, you’d have been kicking up a fuss, insisting only one side’s prisoners be released, depending on where your loyalties lay. 😂😂

Let’s get to the facts: the JV is using €251 million of shareholders’ funds.

The reality, whether you like it or not, is that A and B shareholders are the ones with the voting rights. If we followed your logic and made only the A shareholders pay for the JV, they’d need to contribute the entire €251 million themselves. In that scenario, the spin-out ratio would be 3.27 PLC shares per co-op share. Surely even you can see that this would never pass a vote. Everyone understands this—it’s not up for debate.

You keep harping on about the cash-for-shares scheme. Here’s the truth: 93% of the co-op’s shareholders never used it. The numbers don’t lie, and the fact that such a vast majority never engaged with it speaks volumes. Clearly, they don’t see much value in it, whether you do or not.

Now, let me ask you this directly:

What happens if the JV and spin-out are rejected?

Liquidation won’t even make it to a vote because everyone else understands it would be decisively rejected.

Once the co-op’s shareholding in Kerry Group falls to 5%, it will no longer qualify for participation exemption. That means any action the co-op takes with its shares will be hit with a 33% CGT bill.

Anyone using the cash-for-shares scheme—even those in the lower income tax bracket—will lose €53 out of every €100 to the taxman.

You’ve got your head completely buried in the sand here. You’re so focused on picking apart every detail that you’re failing to see the bigger picture.

I’ve even been told by reliable sources that this is Kerry Group’s last hurrah. There will be no second vote if this fails. Whether that’s true or not, it’s downright irresponsible to encourage shareholders to vote no. A no vote risks jeopardizing the livelihoods of milk suppliers and leaves us all worse off.

This is like a three legged stool nobody gets to sit on it unless all legs are in place.

Yes Liquidation woukd be better for most B&C shareholders but it NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You will NEVER get the 75% A shareholders threshold to approve it

Kerrycow said he's not a shareholder....just a token one according to themselves…the world won't cave in for shareholders if not approved

A lot of people here are voicing genuine concerns and others are forcing agendas whether they will admit it or not. At the end of the day everyone here is an adult do your own research and don’t be listening to people whether you should vote yes or no for the ‘greater good’.
Id advise everyone here concerned to think about your main concerns with this jv that will affect you most then go to the meetings and raise these concerns, then form your own opinion on the answers and figures given and vote as you wish in your own best interests.

They're seeing implications now even before the vote....