Takeover Wars: Here are 5 of the fiercest battles in ASX history!

Takeover activity on the ASX rarely gets to the point where you could use the phase ‘takeover wars’. How would we define that term? Then a push to buy a companies erupt into open competition, with bidders raising offers, launching parallel schemes, or fighting through public campaigns that spill into the media. The last decade has produced a handful of contests that stand out not just because of their size, but because of the intensity of the bidding and oOhMedia (ASX:OML) is the latest.

OML has 3 private equity firms battling for it: Pacific Equity Partners, I Squared Capital and Oaktree with the highest bidding $1.65 per share. We can see why there’s a war for it: Outdoor media assets are difficult to replicate, heavily regulated and strategically valuable for both incumbents and new entrants. That scarcity is what has drawn multiple bidders into the contest. The company’s national footprint, long‑dated site leases and strong advertiser relationships make it one of the few listed media assets with defensible scale.

But this case study is not unique. Here are 5 others!

5 of the Most Noteworthy Takeover Wars on the ASX

1. AusNet Services

AusNet is arguably the cleanest example of a modern Australian bidding war. The 2021 contest between Brookfield, APA Group and IFM Investors was one of the most intense infrastructure battles in recent memory. AusNet’s regulated electricity and gas networks made it a rare asset: large enough to matter, stable enough to justify leverage, and strategically important enough to attract multiple long‑term investors. Brookfield’s final successful offer was A$2.65 per share, valuing AusNet at approximately A$10.2bn. That price reflected genuine competitive tension rather than a simple negotiated uplift. AusNet showed how infrastructure bidding wars unfold when global capital pools collide with domestic strategic investors. It also demonstrated that in regulated assets, scarcity is the ultimate driver of escalation.

2. Warrego Energy

Energy assets often produce the fiercest takeover battles because geology cannot be replicated. Warrego’s Perth Basin position made it a strategic prize for both Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Energy and Strike Energy. The contest escalated quickly. Strike launched an initial proposal, Hancock responded with a higher bid, Strike countered again, and Hancock ultimately prevailed with a final offer of A$0.40 per share, valuing Warrego at roughly A$440m.

The Warrego battle was notable for its speed and intensity. It showed how bidders behave when the asset in question is not just valuable, but directly adjacent to their existing operations. It also highlighted how retail shareholders can influence the trajectory of a bidding war when both bidders attempt to win support through public communication rather than quiet negotiation.

3. Nitro Software

In the case of this software company, Potentia Capital and Alludo exchanged higher offers over several months, each attempting to secure control of a company that sat at the intersection of productivity software, document management and enterprise workflow. The final winning bid came from Potentia at A$2.20 per share, valuing Nitro at approximately A$525m.

Software assets are scarce on the ASX, and Nitro’s customer base, recurring revenue profile and global footprint made it particularly attractive. The contest produced multiple revised bids, public statements and strategic manoeuvres. Potentia ultimately prevailed, but only after Alludo forced the price higher through sustained competition. Nitro demonstrated how bidding wars unfold in technology: bidders focus on recurring revenue, customer retention and product defensibility, and they escalate when they believe the asset will be difficult to replace through organic development.

4. Healthscope

The 2019 contest between Brookfield and BGH Capital was defined by scale, strategy and persistence. Healthscope’s hospital network made it a rare healthcare asset with national reach, strong cash flow and long‑term demographic tailwinds. Brookfield launched an initial proposal, BGH responded with a higher offer, and the two bidders engaged in a prolonged contest that involved revised terms, public communication and intense negotiation. BGH ultimately succeeded with a final offer of A$2.36 per share, valuing Healthscope at roughly A$4.4bn.

The Healthscope battle showed how private‑equity bidding wars unfold when the asset is large enough to anchor a fund’s portfolio and defensible enough to justify aggressive competition. It also revealed how bidders behave when they believe the other side is unwilling to walk away.

5. iiNet

The 2015 contest between TPG Telecom and M2 Group was defined by industrial logic rather than financial engineering. iiNet’s customer base, brand strength and network assets made it a strategic prize for both bidders. TPG launched an initial offer, M2 responded with a competing proposal, and the two companies engaged in a public contest that highlighted their competing visions for the future of Australian telecommunications. TPG ultimately prevailed with a final offer of A$9.55 per share, valuing iiNet at approximately A$1.56bn. The iiNet battle showed how bidding wars unfold when the asset is central to industry consolidation and when both bidders believe that losing the contest will weaken their long‑term competitive position.

Conclusion

Australia’s takeover landscape will continue to produce bidding wars as long as scarcity, strategy and competition intersect. The six cases above show how these battles unfold, how bidders behave and how prices rise when multiple parties refuse to walk away. They also show that in a market where quality assets are increasingly rare, bidding wars are not anomalies; they are becoming one of the defining features of Australian corporate activity.