Actually the point has been raised - and it's a valid one - that if EIN's directors only recently signed off the prospectus and accepted a certain valuation, how can they now say that RYA's rather higher offer 'undervalues the business' unless there has been a material adverse change in EIN's situation, in which case they should have re-written the prospectus?
Floats usually do go off at a discount to fair value so that it rockets up on day one and looks good on the market. But it's disingenuous for EIN's directors to say that RYA's offer 'seriously 'undervalues the business' because by implication they're then saying that they even further undervalued it when setting the float price - in which case the Irish finance minister should be all over them like a rash.
He's backed EIN's board into a very sticky corner, if nothing else. Let's say the current offer is his first shot and he bumps it up to a 33% premium over the float price... At what point is the balance struck between a fair(er) value and the directors implicitly admitting they stuffed the float up?