London - Anheuser-Busch InBev has sprinkled a little sugar on its proposal to take over rival brewer SABMiller. Having been sent packing at £40 a share, the two sides met a couple of days ago when the figure of £42 was mooted as a maybe. Now it's been formalised (sort of) as a "proposal" at £42.15 a share, but of far more significance is the fact there is now a paper-based component.
If you're desperate to accept, and want a piece of the merged company when the deal is done, you can opt for part-payment in restricted shares which can't be sold for five years. You'll get less than you would by accepting cash. A price, in fact, not much better than SAB's pre-takeover-talk high for the year of £37.68. But if you buy into AB InBev's arguments and would face a big US tax bill through taking cash, then maybe this looks OK.
Hence the decision by US tobacco company Altria, which got its shares when InBev took over Budweiser-maker Anheuser-Busch, to back a £65 billion proposal which has been deliberately structured to get around its issues with Uncle Sam.
InBev thought it had the other big noise on side - BevCo, the holding company for Colombia's Santo Domingo family. But it didn't and was forced to issue a clarification by the Takeover Panel. Oops.
As ever with these phantom bids, everything ultimately rests on SAB's board recommending a deal. AB InBev urged shareholders to deploy their thumbscrews. In other words, it wants them to do its work for it. But the fact that it has structured a proposal tweaked in the interests of just one of them is something they should remember.
AB InBev could argue the share alternative is available to anyone who wants to avail themselves of it. But the conditions mean those shares will be all but useless to most institutions.
This is still a deal that may ultimately get done, even though it probably shouldn't. The offer isn't all that compelling when you look at the potential of SAB's African operations; the reason it is not being laughed out of court is largely because Westerners underestimate the potential of what may become the world's next great economic growth story.
So SAB's board should stick to its guns.
The Takeover Panel has given AB InBev one more week to put up or shut up. This dog and pony show demonstrates the value of it having the power to do so.
Seconds out: it's BT versus Sky
In the red corner: BT, draping itself in the flag as the national champion of the UK's digital future. In the blue corner: Sky, with an argument that it is anti-competitive for BT to own both a broadband provider and BT Openreach, which provides the infrastructure used by BT, Sky and others to sell super-duper mega-fast broadband.
BT wants the status quo, arguing that it is already heavily regulated and that if Sky want to lay its own cables, as BT did some years ago, it's welcome to try doing so.
Au contraire, says Sky. While BT might be regulated, strategic decisions on Openreach will be made purely in the interest of BT as a business. If that means compromising the national interest, so be it.
As such, it wants BT Openreach spun off into what would be an independently listed company, one that would make a rather compelling investment case, particularly to overseas bidders given that entry into the FTSE 100 is comparable to putting up a "For Sale" sign. The short-term horizons of investors in the UK stock market mean Openreach might not remain long on the public markets.
Wednesday was the dealine for submissions to Ofcom's review of digital communications passes, and the likelihood is that neither will win by a knockout. But the direction of the points decision could have a huge impact on the future health of the UK's digital economy and on the UK's economy, full stop.
Sky would like a neutral arbiter to at least look at the case, namely the Competition & Markets Authority, and there's something to be said for that. However, the questions posed by BT, Sky and the rest may be too big even for the latter's remit.
BT is right that the UK's internet infrastructure is in pretty good shape, particularly when compared to European rivals. It's in decent shape globally. Keeping it that way will involve taking carefully nuanced decisions. The stakes are very high and that is one reason why the Government will probably want to avoid getting involved. Even though it probably should.
Plea deals may not be our thing, but could be useful
Is Tesco close to landing a US-style plea deal to resolve a lengthy investigation into accounting irregularities? It looks that way.
This may make people uncomfortable, particularly if what is signed looks like a slapped wrist. But what really rankled about the financial crisis, and subsequent banking scandals, was that while companies were fined heavily, individuals, and especially managers and executives, largely got off.
The SFO is also investigating individuals connected to the Tesco scandal. A corporate plea deal may free time, and money, for pursuing them. Which matters.
A corporation cannot be jailed, only fined, and shareholders meet the cost of those. Successfully prosecuting individuals would, by contrast, send a very clear message to the current generation of company bosses. If the price of that is a plea deal, it may be worth paying.
THE INDEPENDENT