Conversation with Celesio IR – 7 Jan 2014 · According to Celesio IR the “latest” date to announce amendments to offer would be one day before the offer close [9 Jan, 24:00 hrs local time] of the acceptance period. · The IR confirmed that Mckesson has waived its right to reduce the acceptance level from 75% and hence “there is no more chance” to change this level. · The IR said there are “no other comments” on the deal from his side and would wait for the related parties (Mckesson and Elliott) to make the move/announcements. Conversation with BaFin – 7 Jan 2014 · The BaFin contact confirmed to us that when a bidder makes a statement [similar to that of Mckesson’s statement] that it would not waive the minimum acceptance level, such a statement is binding and going back on such a statement is “extremely difficult”. For BaFin to even consider reversal to such a statement, there should be “more than exceptional circumstances”. · However, if a major shareholder of a target makes such statement [such as the one made by Elliott on 23 Dec] it is difficult to conclude whether it would be binding as in a similar sense to that of a statement made by a bidder. No such precedent exists and BaFin will reach a solution if such an issue comes before it. However, the contact noted that there could be an argument in favour of the binding element to such a statement. · New offer: if a deal fails because the offer failed to reach the minimum acceptance condition, a bidder is restricted from making a new offer for 1 year from the lapsed of bid. However, such a restriction could be lifted by BaFin if the target agrees to it. · Subsequent offer price: there are no takeover rules specifying that a subsequent offer should be made at or above the failed bid price. However, the subsequent offer should meet the “minimum price” rule and BaFin has discretion over such offers.