The launch of AMP's new and by now accepted bid for Axa Asia Pacific's (Axa AP) Australian and New Zealand business was unsurprising, but the fact it could be made at all did raise some eyebrows.
After all, AMP said on 14 December last year - before Axa AP decided to support National Australia Bank's offer - that its bid at that time was its "best and final".
This statement, despite its slight variation from the phrase used by ASIC, comes with certain obligations.
According to ASIC Regulatory Guide 25, when a bidder makes a "last and final" statement to press shareholders to accept its offer and then departs from this statement, it may result in regulatory action as it undermines chapter six of the Corporations Act 2001.
"The market participant risks regulatory action by us for contravention of misleading or deceptive conduct provisions or an application by us or another party to the Takeovers Panel for a declaration of unacceptable circumstances," ASIC stated in its guide.
However, AMP chief executive Craig Dunn argued in a conference call on Monday that the statement made in December 2009 no longer applied.
"That phrase on the last proposal relates to a proposal that has lapsed long ago and was rejected long ago," Dunn said.
"Since that time there has been obviously nearly 12 months elapsed and there have been some significant changes in the external environment."
Dunn has a point when he implies that a last and final statement does not mean a party can never ever bid for the same company again.
But the question is whether the circumstances have changed that dramatically that the most recent AMP bid can be seen as a unique bid, unrelated to the company's previous approaches.
Unfortunately, ASIC's regulatory guide does not give any details around the required period between a last and final statement and a new bid from the same party.
Takeovers Panel member and Melbourne Law School commercial law professor Ian Ramsay confirms this situation.
"In relation to the time that elapses before a new bid can be made on different terms, there are no hard and fast rules in Australia on this," Ramsay said.
"We do not have in the act or regulatory guidance a specific time before a new bid can be made."
An interesting detail in this situation is that the bid for Axa AP made on Monday might be higher than AMP's bid of 14 December, but AMP actually pays less under the new construction.
Under the new deal, AMP pays $4.154 billion for the Australia and New Zealand business, while under the 14 December bid it would have paid $4.413 billion.
The difference is that Axa SA, Axa AP's French parent, pays more under the new offer.
Axa SA will acquire Axa Asia for $9.834 billion versus $9.125 billion in the December bid.
In this light, AMP's December offer truly was its best.
