US hedge fund, Elliott Advisors – an activist shareholder with a 3.25% stake in Akzo Nobel – is pushing the Dutch firm to accept the stateside takeover and suggests that Akzo’s plans to remain independent will put more jobs at risk.

Akzo shareholder, Elliott Advisors, who has been making its feelings known about Akzo’s Nobel’s refusal to enter into talks with rival PPG Industries, now claims that the Dulux parent will lose up to 6,400 jobs under the independence plan it has put forward as an alternative.

The activist shareholder, which now holds more than 3% in the Dutch coatings giant, has commissioned third-party research that argues the number of jobs axed under Akzo's plan to remain independent by separating out its speciality chemicals division, would be four times greater than  if PPG and Akzo were to combine.

Akzo spokesman Leslie McGibbon described the Elliott report as an "imaginative work of fiction" in a comment to Reuters. However, the company has not put a number on potential redundancies under its plan to either sell or float its chemicals division.  In its latest offer, PPG promised that no employee  currently working in Akzo’s chemicals division will lose their job as a direct result of its acquisition of the company. However, the annual synergies of $750 million that PPG expects to see as a result of combining the companies, is likely to result in job losses.

It is the latest episode in the saga that has seen Dulux parent Akzo Nobel come under fire from investors for attempting to resist PPG’s persistent  takeover bid. A group of shareholders, led by Elliott Advisers, has already attempted to oust Akzo chairman Antony Burgmans, calling a special general meeting and reportedly blaming him for refusing to engage in talks with US firm PPG, which has now made three offers to acquire the company.

Akzo stated that the request for an exceptional general meeting (EGM) to dismiss the chairman of the board does not meet required standards under Dutch law, adding that “the request is irresponsible, disproportionate, damaging and not in the best interests of the company.”

While shareholders are within their rights to call meetings to discuss ‘fair’ and ‘reasonable’ issues, Akzo explained that the sole agenda on this occasion means there is no “legitimate interest” or legal basis for calling an EGM.

The company added that it “strongly respects and greatly values its shareholders and regularly engages in an open and direct dialog with them to better understand and consider their perspectives.”

As a show or rising tensions, in its response to the call for the removal of Mr Burgmans, Akzo also revealed that it has reported Elliott Advisors to the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM).

The Dulux parent said in a statement last month that it “became aware on April 11 that Elliott Advisors intended to privately share potentially price sensitive information with PPG about its decision to request an EGM.”  Akzo has since shared this information with the AFM and is calling on Elliott Advisors and PPG “to clarify their relationship and the history of the communications between the two companies”.

Meanwhile, Akzo has said the board “will carefully review and consider” the latest proposal from PPG – a cash-and-stocks offer worth €26.9billion. It has already rejected two bids from the US rival, saying of the last offer, that it continued to “significantly undervalue “the business and failed to address any of the “concerns, risks and uncertainties Akzo Nobel raised in its response to the first proposal”.