Laird rejects $493m offer from US rival Cooper Industries

By Rupert Steiner for the Daily Mail
Updated: 16:20 EDT, 16 June 2011

One of Britain’s oldest industrial firms, which built the first iron ship for the government in 1840, has received an unsolicited £493m bid from American rival Cooper Industries.

Laird rejected the 185p-a-share offer calling the approach 'opportunistic' and saying it substantially undervalued the company and its prospects.

The firm, which formerly traded as Cammell Laird, was one of the most famous names in British shipbuilding during the 19th and 20th centuries and is currently building the flight deck of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth.

No impressed: One of Britain¿s oldest industrial firms, which built the first iron ship for the government in 1840, has received an unsolicited £493m bid from American rival Cooper Industries

But over the past few years it has morphed itself into an electronics business making rubber shields for mobile phones that prevents users from burning their ears on the hot components.

This accounts for the lion’s share of Laird’s business. It is being pursued by Wall Street giant Cooper, which has a market value of £6bn and operates in 23 countries employing 25,000.

Cooper installed the lighting at London’s St Pancras station and with its 2,100 staff in the UK dwarfs the 50 employed by Laird (up 51.60p to 137.4p).

Cooper approached Laird at the beginning of the month in a bid to garner an agreed deal but the electronics firm has refused to open its books.

The 185p-a-share offer is a 35 per cent premium to Wednesday’s closing price of 137.3p. Trading concerns have seen Laird’s shares fall by 15 per cent over the past six months.

A Cooper spokesman said: ‘Cooper is disappointed that despite its efforts to enter into a constructive dialogue with Laird on several occasions, the Laird board has stated that it is currently unwilling to engage with Cooper.

Our strong preference remains to work towards a recommended transaction through a constructive dialogue.’