Entitlement offers with overs where everyone given a minimum allocation

July 1, 2024

This list provides examples of entitlement offers with unlimited overs which were subsequently scaled back where all applicants were given a minimum allocation before pro-rata based on size of holding kicked in.

Australand, 2009: overs were limited to a maximum of $40,000 or 1 times a shareholders' entitlement. See announcement.

Bendigo & Adelaide Bank, 2009: $121 million retail offer at $6.75 attracted $161 million in total applications but no breakdown between entitlement and overs. Scale back policy was a minimum of 1000 shares or 3 times. See announcement on September 14, 2009.

Billabong, 2009: the higher of 15,000 shares (costing $112,500 at $7.50 a pop) or 3 times entitlement – see announcement.

Fairfax Media, 2009:
the higher of 50,000 shares or 3 times entitlement – see announcement.

Reece Australia, 2020: applicants for over in $20 million 3-for-55 retail entitlement offer were all allocated a minimum of $15,000 shares and pro rata after that. There was $10 million in overs applications for a shortfall of about 7 million. See announcement.

Transfield Services (TSE), January 2011: 2-for-9 non-renounceable at $3 to raise $295 million and the $97m retail offer finished over-subscribed with $109m in total applications but no break down was provided. Was an unusual scale back formula which saw everyone given the larger of 2000 shares or 4 times their entitlements provided they started with more than 50 shares and weren't receiving more than $1m worth of overs.

Wesfarmers, 2009: despite the retail offer falling short ever after considering overs applications, applicants were allocated the higher of 1000 shares or 3 times the entitlement – see announcement.