Paris: Steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal vowed to press ahead with his bid to acquire Arcelor, despite plans by the Luxembourg-based group to merge with Russia's Severstal, saying his offer made more sense for shareholders.
Arcelor said on Friday it had agreed to buy Russia's Severstal to create the world's biggest steelmaker, in a €13 billion ($16.6 billion) deal that would thwart Mittal Steel's hostile bid.
But Mittal said his bid offered better value to shareholders and would create a stronger industrial group.
"We are determined to complete our approach to Arcelor," he told French daily Le Figaro in Saturday's edition.
"It is in the interests of all the shareholders and all the parties involved, in both financial and industrial terms."
Mittal Steel's existing bid offers one Mittal share and €11.10 euros in cash for every Arcelor share.
It values Arcelor around €23 billion ($29.4 billion) and Mittal said the offer "fully valued" the group.
"We are offering to involve (shareholders) in the construction of a European champion, the undisputed world leader," he said.
"I am convinced they will recognise the strength of our project. This alliance makes obvious sense." Mittal condemned the Arcelor-Severstal deal and rejected claims by Arcelor management that it valued the group at €44 per share.
He said it would open the way for Severstal head Alexei Mordashov, who will take a 32 per cent stake in Arcelor through the deal, to assume full control of the group.
"It is a creeping takeover done in fact below the current share price of Arcelor," he said.
"If Mr Mordashov wants to take control of Arcelor, he has to launch an offer for the whole of its capital with a premium for shareholders," he said.
He said he remained open to talks with Arcelor management but added: "It isn't necessary to complete our approach." "We hope for the most democratic process possible which offers a real choice to Arcelor shareholders."
The Severstal deal is due to be presented to Arcelor shareholders at a meeting set provisionally for June 28. For it to be rejected, a majority would have to vote against it.
Comments
0 comment