Appraisal rights

Last updated

Appraisal rights, also called dissent rights or buy-out rights, among other variants, [1] [2] are the rights of shareholders to receive a court-supervised valuation of their shares when certain major changes, such as an acquisition of the company, are contemplated. Shareholders who do not support the transaction are entitled to receive the value of their shares in cash, as determined by the court. Appraisal rights are available in jurisdictions including Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Contents

Canada

The Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) and analogous provincial corporation statutes confer appraisal rights on minority shareholders when the following changes to the corporation are proposed: certain amendments to a company's articles of incorporation; an amalgamation, or merger; moving the corporation to another jurisdiction, which is called a "continuance"; selling all or almost all of the corporation's assets; and going private or squeeze-out transactions. [3] Shareholders who wish to exercise their appraisal rights must follow a detailed procedure set out in the statute. [4] Appraisal rights under the CBCA entitle shareholders to the "fair value" of their shares, but fair value need not be identical to fair market value. [5] Amendments guaranteeing appraisal rights were first added to the CBCA in 1975; Ontario legislation had provided them at least since the 1950s. [6]

United Kingdom

Appraisal rights are limited in United Kingdom company law. The Insolvency Act 1986 gives minority shareholders appraisal rights when liquidation of the company is contemplated. The Companies Act 2006 and The Takeover Code also provide appraisal rights when a buyer is set to acquire a controlling stake in the company. [7]

United States

Corporate law statutes in all US states provide appraisal rights to minority shareholders when some kinds of transactions are contemplated. [8] The kinds of transactions that trigger appraisal rights vary from state to state. [8] Minority shareholders who exercise their appraisal rights are entitled to a court-supervised valuation of their shares, after which the company must buy their shares at that value. [9] [10] Generally, under American state law, shareholders only have appraisal rights if their shares carry the right to vote on matters affecting the company. Another exception applies to public companies: since there is a wide market for public company shares, shareholders can sell their shares on a stock exchange and do not need a court-sanctioned valuation. [2]

Appraisal rights entitle dissenting minority shareholders to receive the court-determined fair value of their shares instead of participating in the transaction. [11] However, since by hypothesis they do not support the contemplated transaction, they are not entitled to any additional per-share value that might result from the transaction itself. [11] Some transactions impose a condition precedent that ends the transaction if enough shareholders exercise their appraisal rights. [9]

Many large US companies are incorporated in Delaware, which gives its corporate law a disproportionately large influence. [12] Under the Delaware General Corporation Law, appraisal rights are only available in some kinds of mergers; other states, which are entitled under American law to create and regulate corporations, [13] confer them in a broader set of circumstances, such as in asset purchases. [14] According to the Delaware courts, the appraisal remedy was created as a benefit to minority shareholders after the Delaware legislature removed the requirement that a merger must be unanimously approved to be effective. [15] Many contemporary appraisal cases in Delaware are started by minority shareholders who believe that the proposed merger values their shares too low. [16] Although Delaware law generally limits appraisal rights when a merger of two public companies is proposed, that limit does not apply when shareholders will receive cash (as opposed, for example, to shares) as consideration for the merger. This exception often triggers appraisal rights for shareholders in Delaware-incorporated public companies. [17]

Citations

  1. ↑ Oesterle 2006, p. 66.
  2. 1 2 Brown, Robert L. (2007). The Concise Guide to Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures: Business, Legal, Finance, Accounting, Tax and Process Aspects. Palgrave Macmillan. pp.  44–46. ISBN   978-0-230-60078-2. OCLC   87734130.
  3. ↑ VanDuzer 2018, p. 501.
  4. ↑ VanDuzer 2018, pp. 502–503.
  5. ↑ VanDuzer 2018, p. 503, citing Guang v WEX Pharmaceuticals Inc, 2013 BCSC 1949.
  6. ↑ MacIntosh 1986, p. 204.
  7. ↑ Davies, Paul L. (2008). Gower and Davies' Principles of Modern Company Law (8th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. p.  652. ISBN   978-0-421-94900-3. OCLC   693215657.
  8. 1 2 Fisch 2022, pp. 946–947.
  9. 1 2 Oesterle 2006, pp. 66–67.
  10. ↑ Jiang, Li & Thomas 2020, p. 2139.
  11. 1 2 Cleveland 2022, pp. 922–923.
  12. ↑ Cleveland 2022, p. 926, n. 19.
  13. ↑ Cleveland 2022, p. 926.
  14. ↑ Oesterle 2006, pp. 68–69.
  15. ↑ Cleveland 2022, p. 927.
  16. ↑ Cleveland 2022, p. 928.
  17. ↑ Fisch 2022, p. 948.

Works cited

Related Research Articles

Mergers and acquisitions Type of corporate transaction

In corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are transactions in which the ownership of companies, other business organizations, or their operating units are transferred or consolidated with other entities. As an aspect of strategic management, M&A can allow enterprises to grow or downsize, and change the nature of their business or competitive position.

A shareholder of a corporation is an individual or legal entity that is registered by the corporation as the legal owner of shares of the share capital of a public or private corporation. Shareholders may be referred to as members of a corporation. A person or legal entity becomes a shareholder in a corporation when their name and other details are entered in the corporation's register of shareholders or members, and unless required by law the corporation is not required or permitted to enquire as to the beneficial ownership of the shares. A corporation generally cannot own shares of itself.

Due diligence Standard of care before entering into a contract with another party

Due diligence is the investigation or exercise of care that a reasonable business or person is normally expected to take before entering into an agreement or contract with another party or an act with a certain standard of care.

An activist shareholder is a shareholder who uses an equity stake in a corporation to put pressure on its management. A fairly small stake may be enough to launch a successful campaign. In comparison, a full takeover bid is a much more costly and difficult undertaking. The goals of activist shareholders range from financial to non-financial. Shareholder activists can address self-dealing by corporate insiders, although large stockholders can also engage in self-dealing to themselves at the expense of smaller minority shareholders.

Corporate law Body of law that governs businesses

Corporate law is the body of law governing the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses. The term refers to the legal practice of law relating to corporations, or to the theory of corporations. Corporate law often describes the law relating to matters which derive directly from the life-cycle of a corporation. It thus encompasses the formation, funding, governance, and death of a corporation.

Business valuation is a process and a set of procedures used to estimate the economic value of an owner's interest in a business. Here various valuation techniques are used by financial market participants to determine the price they are willing to pay or receive to effect a sale of the business. In addition to estimating the selling price of a business, the same valuation tools are often used by business appraisers to resolve disputes related to estate and gift taxation, divorce litigation, allocate business purchase price among business assets, establish a formula for estimating the value of partners' ownership interest for buy-sell agreements, and many other business and legal purposes such as in shareholders deadlock, divorce litigation and estate contest.

A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. Often, the third party is an insider of the corporation, such as an executive officer or director. Shareholder derivative suits are unique because under traditional corporate law, management is responsible for bringing and defending the corporation against suit. Shareholder derivative suits permit a shareholder to initiate a suit when management has failed to do so. To enable a diversity of management approaches to risks and reinforce the most common forms of corporate rules with a high degree of permissible management power, many jurisdictions have implemented minimum thresholds and grounds to such suits.

A squeeze-out or squeezeout, sometimes synonymous with freeze-out, is the compulsory sale of the shares of minority shareholders of a joint-stock company for which they receive a fair cash compensation.

The de facto merger doctrine states that courts will look to substance over form when determining whether statutory merger law applies to a company's shareholders. Thus, where an asset acquisition leads to the same result as a statutory merger, these jurisdictions demand that shareholders are given the same rights as in the statutory merger. The doctrine was primarily established in Farris v. Glen Alden Corp., 143 A.2d 25.

<i>Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.</i>

Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701, is a case concerning United States corporate law in the context of mergers and "squeeze outs".

A fairness opinion is a professional evaluation by an investment bank or other third party as to whether the terms of a merger, acquisition, buyback, spin-off, or privatization are fair. It is rendered for a fee. They are typically issued when a public company is being sold, merged or divested of all or a substantial division of their business. They can also be required in private transactions not involving a company that is traded on a public exchange, as well as in circumstances other than mergers, such as a corporation exchanging debt for equity. Some of the specific functions of a fairness opinion are to aid in decision-making, mitigate risk, and enhance communication.

Tag-along right

Tag along rights comprise a group of clauses in a contract which together have the effect of allowing the minority shareholder(s) in a corporation to also take part in a sale of shares by the majority shareholder to a third party under the same terms and conditions. Consider an example: A and B are both shareholders in a company, with A being the majority shareholder and B the minority shareholder. C, a third party, offers to buy A's shares at an attractive price, and A accepts. In this situation, tag-along rights would allow B to also participate in the sale under the same terms and conditions as A.

United States corporate law Overview of United States corporate law

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has done the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

<i>Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.</i>

Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.

Shareholder oppression occurs when the majority shareholders in a corporation take action that unfairly prejudices the minority. It most commonly occurs in non-publicly traded companies, because the lack of a public market for shares leaves minority shareholders particularly vulnerable, since minority shareholders cannot escape mistreatment by selling their stock and exiting the corporation. The majority shareholders may harm the economic interests of the minority by refusing to declare dividends or attempting a squeezeout. The majority may physically lock the minority out of the corporate premises and even deny the minority the right to inspect corporate records and books, making it necessary for the minority to sue every time it wants to look at them. An important concept in law pertaining to shareholder oppression is the "reasonable expectations" of the minority shareholder. The "fair dealing" standard is also sometimes used by courts.

Accretion/dilution analysis is a type of M&A financial modelling performed in the pre-deal phase to evaluate the effect of the transaction on shareholder value and to check whether EPS for buying shareholders will increase or decrease post-deal. Generally, shareholders do not prefer dilutive transactions; however, if the deal may generate enough value to become accretive in a reasonable time, a proposed combination is justified.

Canadian corporate law

Canadian corporate law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.

<i>BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2008] 3 SCR 560 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of the duties of corporate directors to act in the best interests of the corporation, "viewed as a good corporate citizen". This case introduced the principle of fair treatment as an organizing principle in Canadian corporate law.

British Virgin Islands company law

The British Virgin Islands company law is the law that governs businesses registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is primarily codified through the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004, and to a lesser extent by the Insolvency Act, 2003 and by the Securities and Investment Business Act, 2010. The British Virgin Islands has approximately 30 registered companies per head of population, which is likely the highest ratio of any country in the world. Annual company registration fees provide a significant part of Government revenue in the British Virgin Islands, which accounts for the comparative lack of other taxation. This might explain why company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the British Virgin Islands when compared to countries of similar size.

The oppression remedy in Canadian corporate law is a powerful tool available in Canadian courts, unique in breadth and scope compared to other examples of the oppression remedy found elsewhere in the world.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.