You can tell there's a juicy back story when company statements read like the ravings of a sleep-deprived lawyer. Shareholders in CSR may have been bemused by yesterday's announcement that the Australian conglomerate noted “an expression of interest . . . regarding an offer to hold discussions to develop a proposal” to buy its sugar and renewable energy business.

Echoing the lumpen legalese of the bidder's press release, issued earlier, is a sign of irritation. CSR had touted its sugar unit to trade buyers for at least two years before electing to spin it off to shareholders last June. That flushed out more tyre-kickers, including Bright Food of China. By then, though, the new business had a name (Sucrogen), a provisional board, a recapitalised balance-sheet, and a due date for the demerger: the end of March. Now comes this new approach, made in a four-page media statement. For a company controlled by an arm of the state (the municipal government of Shanghai), this is extraordinary stuff.

It may also be effective. Bright Food says it values CSR at “no more than A$1.5bn” on the information available. In itself, this isn't a bad price – a double-digit premium to Brazil's Cosan, on the basis of enterprise value/projected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. More significantly, it implies a higher offer could be possible, if the board sat down to talk. Chairman Ian Blackburne may balk at pursuing a twin-track approach, this late in the game, but he really has no option: he is splitting the company up because he believes the market will reward it with higher multiples in pieces. CSR, intact, is trading at 7.4 times EV/ebitda; Bright Food is already offering 8.5 for Sucrogen. Something of a sucre punch.