Wilson Neill investors may get Radionet reward

Friday 3rd November 2000

By Nicholas Bryant

A likely ownership split for Wilson Neill subsidiary company Radionet, soon to be a standalone entity, could see Wilson Neill shareholders handsomely rewarded.

In August Wilson Neill sold a 28% stake in wholly owned wireless
internet business Radionet to Fay Richwhite-backed venture capital group Jump Capital.

It is understood that as a separate company Radionet will list on the secondary board before seeking a main board listing next year.

Wilson Neill will stay on the secondary board, relegated to being a less glamorous hospitality stock until it finds a new tech company to incubate.

But it is understood shareholders could receive about 830 Radionet shares for every 1000 Wilson Neill shares they hold before Christmas.

Jump Capital's lawyers Russell McVeagh and Wilson Neill's team at Chapman Tripp are understood to be drawing up a prospectus and arranging a shareholders' meeting.

A likely ownership structure for Radionet is believed to be Jump Capital with 28%, Wilson Neill Corporation with 12% with Wilson Neill shareholders controlling 60%.

Adding sweetness to the deal is the belief Jump Capital intends to begin a rapid bout of investment in Australasia.

Meanwhile, Wilson Neill's transformation from hospitality to technology incubator has been recognised for its value by a cheeky cybersquatter.

Auckland man Robert Sova registered no less than 24 derivatives of Wilson Neill as internet domain names, then tried to sell them back to the company.

For the privilege of having its own name back Wilson Neill was asked for $25,000 or 300,000 shares (currently trading at about 6c on the Stock Exchange's secondary board).

But the High Court was having none of it, with Justice Robert Chambers saying he suspected Mr Sova well knew he was exceeding the limits of the law. Last week Justice Chambers granted a permanent injunction restraining Mr Sova's use of the words Wilson Neill and fined him $5005 plus disbursements.

While the sum was small, in a rapidly evolving field of law the case could prove important. It appears to mirror a dispute between DB Breweries and The Domain Name Co.

Comments from our readers

No comments yet