In a final effort to commence takeover discussions PPG has filed a statement with the Amsterdam Court of Appeals to forcibly bring AkzoNobel to the table.
The appeal comes after PPG's third bid of 26.9bn euro (39.7bn AUD) was rejected earlier this month. Should PPG not make the June 1 deadline to file bidding papers, the company will be forced to halt further offers for six months.
PPG's attempt to engage the courts successfully would negate the need to file papers and instead force AkzoNobel to enter into discussions with its American rival.
PPG chairman and CEO Michael H. McGarry detailed interactions between himself and AkzoNobel CEO Ton Büchner in 2016 in a statement to the court, outlining the attempts PPG had previously made to enter into negotiations.
These meetings including multiple proposals for a takeover, of which McGarry claims Büchner quickly rejected and made no attempt to evaluate or discuss in any manner.
"It was only after Mr. Büchner’s responses that I brought forward PPG’s proposal to combine the two companies. Each proposal, though, was quickly rejected and made public with no attempt to fully evaluate or discuss any aspect with PPG.
"AkzoNobel, in both instances, never asked any questions regarding our proposals."
McGarry went on to state: "As you know, PPG has a long-standing presence in the Netherlands, and we employ about 1,000 people today within five facilities.
"Together with AkzoNobel, we could invest even more into these communities and provide more opportunities for stakeholders, including employees.
"We think it is important to take this opportunity today to provide our first-hand, factual accounts of this process for the Chamber’s consideration."
McGarry also claimed the concept of 'the board knows best' was now outdated and that those shareholders who were fighting for negotiations to occur needed to be heard.
"I submit the era of Elitism and the board knows best is over. The shareholder needs to be heard. The school teacher banking on their performance to fund their pensions needs to be heard.
"Transparency on their “stand-alone” value is appropriate and as a reference point AkzoNobel has not once achieved a 4% annual growth rate in the last 5 years."
Finally he said that the invitation to enter into conversations with AkzoNobel was still standing and the company's preference was to enter into face-to-face negotiations.
In his closing remarks, McGarry asked the court to intervene, posing the question, "why is AkzoNobel so opposed to engaging with PPG against the wishes of its shareholders?"