A squeeze-out[1] or squeezeout,[2] sometimes synonymous with freeze-out,[2] is the compulsory sale of the shares of minority shareholders of a joint-stock company for which they receive a fair cash compensation.
This technique allows one or more shareholders who collectively hold a majority of shares in a corporation to gain ownership of remaining shares in that corporation. The majority shareholders incorporate a second corporation, which initiates a merger with the original corporation. The shareholders using this technique are then in a position to dictate the plan of merger. They force the minority stockholders in the original corporation to accept a cash payment for their shares, effectively "freezing them out" of the resulting company.
Process
Although a leveraged buyout (LBO) is an effective tool for a group of investors to use to purchase a company, it is less well suited to the case of one company acquiring another. An alternative is the freeze-out merger; the Laws on tender offers allow the acquiring company to freeze existing shareholders out of the gains from merging by forcing non-tendering shareholders to sell their shares for the tender offer price.[3]
To complete freeze-out merger, the acquiring company first creates a new corporation, which it owns and controls. The acquiring corporation then makes a tender offer at an amount slightly higher than the current target corporation' stock price. If the tender offer succeeds, the acquirer gains control of the target and merges its assets into the new subsidiary corporation. In effect, the non-tendering shareholders lose their shares because the target corporation no longer exists. In compensation, non tendering shareholders get their right to receive the tender offer price for their shares. The bidder, in essence, gets complete ownership of the target for the tender offer price. Because the value the non-tendering shareholders receive for their shares is equal to the tender price (which is more than the premerger stock price), the law recognizes it as fair value and non-tendering shareholders have no legal recourse. Under these circumstances, existing shareholders will tender their stock, reasoning that there is no benefit to holding out: if the tender offer succeeds, they get the tender price anyway; if they hold out, they risk jeopardizing the deal and forgoing the small gain. Hence the acquirer is able to capture almost all the value added from the merger and, as in the leveraged buyout, is able to effectively eliminate the free rider problem. This freeze-out tender offer has a significant advantage over an LBO because an acquiring corporation need not make an all-cash tender offer. Instead, it can use shares of its own stock to pay for the acquisition. In this case, the bidder offers to exchange each shareholder's stock in the target for stock in the acquiring company. As long as the exchange rate is set so that the value in the acquirer's stock exceeds the pre-merger market value of the target-company stock, the non-tendering shareholders will receive fair value for their shares and will have no legal recourse.
Criticism
The legal community has criticized the present rules with regard to freeze-out mergers as being biased against the interests of the minority shareholders. For example, if a gain in stock value is anticipated by the majority, they can deprive the frozen-out minority of its share of those gains.[4]
In Germany, a pool of shareholders owning at least 95% of a company's shares has the right to "squeeze out" the remaining minority of shareholders by paying them an adequate compensation.[9] This procedure is based on the Securities Acquisition and Takeover Act (ger.Wertpapiererwerbs- und Übernahmegesetz, WpÜG). An alternative procedure is governed by §§ 327a – 327f of the German Stock Corporation Act[10] (ger. Aktiengesetz, AktG), valid since January 1, 2002.[11]
For the first time in German history, this law provided a mandatory legal framework for takeovers, replacing the former voluntary takeover code (ger. Übernahmekodex).[12] Although it has been asserted that the law does not break the German constitution it has courted the resentment of many small investors who consider it to be the legalization of expropriation.
Conditions required
The criteria for a squeeze-out are set out in § 327a AktG. The exclusion of minority shareholders of the company requires: a corporation or a partnership limited by shares (KGaA) as affected society (1), a major shareholder as defined § 327a AktG (2), a "request" from him, the company's shareholders may decide to transfer the shares of minority shareholders on him (3). This decision must be taken at a meeting in this regard (4) and provide a reasonable cash compensation for minority shareholders (5).
Decision
The decision to enforce a squeeze out must be made by holding a vote at the general meeting; as the major party already commands the vast majority of all votes, this usually is a mere formality. The compensation value is determined by the company's economic situation at the date of the general meeting, the minimum compensation being the share's average stock exchange price during the past three months.[12]
Objection
Expelled shareholders can appeal against the squeeze out according to § 243 AktG.<ref "§ 243 AktG". Einzelnorm (in German). Retrieved 2023-12-03.</ref> Also, according to this section, some reasons, such as inadequate compensation, are not sufficient to inhibit the squeeze out. Even while the rescission proceedings are still running the main shareholder has the right to register in the Commercial Registry if he meets the preconditions defined in §§ 327e sec. 2, § 319 Abs. 5, 6 AktG;[13] by doing so an approval process is initiated and all shares held by minor shareholders devolve to him.
Under UK law, section 979 of the Companies Act 2006 is the relevant "squeeze out" provision. It gives a takeover bidder who has already acquired 90% of a company's shares the right to compulsorily buy out the remaining shareholders. Conversely section 983 (the "sell out" provision) allows minority shareholders to insist their stakes are bought out. (see Companies Act 2006)
United States
In the US squeeze-outs are governed by State laws, e.g. 8 Delaware Code § 253 permits a parent corporation owning at least 90% of the stock of a subsidiary to merge with that subsidiary, and to pay off in cash the minority shareholders. The consent of the minority shareholders is not required. They are merely entitled to receive fair value for their shares. This is in contrast to freeze-outs, where the minority interest is unable to liquidate their investment.
Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are business transactions in which the ownership of companies, business organizations, or their operating units are transferred to or consolidated with another company or business organization. This could happen through direct absorption, a merger, a tender offer or a hostile takeover. 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 rights plan, colloquially known as a "poison pill", is a type of defensive tactic used by a corporation's board of directors against a takeover.
In business, a takeover is the purchase of one company by another. In the UK, the term refers to the acquisition of a public company whose shares are listed on a stock exchange, in contrast to the acquisition of a private company.
A shareholder of corporate stock refers to 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.
In corporate finance a stock swap is the exchange of one equity-based asset for another, where, during the merger or acquisition, the swap provides an opportunity to pay with stock rather than with cash; see Mergers and acquisitions § Stock.
A public company is a company whose ownership is organized via shares of stock which are intended to be freely traded on a stock exchange or in over-the-counter markets. A public company can be listed on a stock exchange, which facilitates the trade of shares, or not. In some jurisdictions, public companies over a certain size must be listed on an exchange. In most cases, public companies are private enterprises in the private sector, and "public" emphasizes their reporting and trading on the public markets.
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.
In corporate finance, a tender offer is a type of public takeover bid. The tender offer is a public, open offer or invitation by a prospective acquirer to all stockholders of a publicly traded corporation to tender their stock for sale at a specified price during a specified time, subject to the tendering of a minimum and maximum number of shares. In a tender offer, the bidder contacts shareholders directly; the directors of the company may or may not have endorsed the tender offer proposal.
Risk arbitrage, also known as merger arbitrage, is an investment strategy that speculates on the successful completion of mergers and acquisitions. An investor that employs this strategy is known as an arbitrageur. Risk arbitrage is a type of event-driven investing in that it attempts to exploit pricing inefficiencies caused by a corporate event.
Share repurchase, also known as share buyback or stock buyback, is the reacquisition by a company of its own shares. It represents an alternate and more flexible way of returning money to shareholders. When used in coordination with increased corporate leverage, buybacks can increase share prices.
Trinidad Drilling Ltd. was a corporation headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada that operated in the drilling and well servicing sectors of the North American oil and gas industry. Trinidad was acquired by Ensign Energy Services between late 2018 to early 2019, and was amalgamated into Ensign in 2019.
The Williams Act (USA) refers to 1968 amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 enacted in 1968 regarding tender offers. The legislation was proposed by Senator Harrison A. Williams of New Jersey.
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 control premium is an amount that a buyer is sometimes willing to pay over the current market price of a publicly traded company in order to acquire a controlling share in that company.
German company law (Gesellschaftsrecht) is an influential legal regime for companies in Germany. The primary form of company is the public company or Aktiengesellschaft (AG). A private company with limited liability is known as a Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH). A partnership is called a Kommanditgesellschaft (KG).
In mergers and acquisitions, a mandatory offer, also called a mandatory bid in some jurisdictions, is an offer made by one company to purchase some or all outstanding shares of another company, as required by securities laws and regulations or stock exchange rules governing corporate takeovers. Most countries, with the notable exception of the United States, have provisions requiring mandatory offers.
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.
The following is a glossary which defines terms used in mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers of companies, whether private or public.
Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc., C.A. Nos. 10866, 10670, 10935 (Consol.), 1989 Del. Ch. LEXIS 77, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 94, 514, aff'd, 571 A.2d 1140, is a U.S. corporate law case from Delaware, concerning defensive measures in the mergers and acquisitions context. The Delaware Court of Chancery and the Supreme Court of Delaware upheld the use of defensive measures to advance the long-term goals of the target corporation, where the corporation was not in "Revlon mode".
Appraisal rights, also called dissent rights or buy-out rights, among other variants, 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.
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.
