On Wednesday, BHP Billiton Ltd. (NYSE: BHP), the Anglo-Australian miner, said that the Elliott’s restructure proposals, which suggested BHP Billiton to overhaul its corporate structure and abandon its U.S. oil division, were costly and flawed.
On Monday, Elliott said that it had a “long economic interest” of around 4.1% of BHP’s London-listed shares. It also hoped the BHP to be a single company domiciled in Britain, and had a primary share-market listing in London and a secondary listing in Sydney. Elliott also said that the restructure could unlock shareholder value of up to $46 billion.
Currently, BHP has a structure that bases the firm both in Sydney and London. The company originally ignored the letter on Monday after the activist hedge fund made the contents of the letter public.
“We have examined these suggestions many times before and we will continue to do so in relentless search of value,” Andrew Mackenzie, the chief executive of BHP said. “(However) we are confident we have everything in place to increase returns and significantly grow shareholder value.”
“The (dual-listed structure) is not a restraint to our business,” said Peter Beaven, the Chief Financial Officer of BHP. “It provides two important acquisition currencies in addition to cash.”