19.01.2013 Views

A Guide to Investing in Trinidad and Tobago (2011) - Ministry of ...

A Guide to Investing in Trinidad and Tobago (2011) - Ministry of ...

A Guide to Investing in Trinidad and Tobago (2011) - Ministry of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

• To amalgamate with another company (other<br />

than a short-form amalgamation between companies<br />

which are closely related).<br />

• To sell, lease or exchange all or substantially all <strong>of</strong><br />

its property.<br />

In addition a shareholder has a right <strong>to</strong> dissent where<br />

this is permitted by the court on an application by a<br />

company <strong>to</strong> effect certa<strong>in</strong> arrangements.<br />

Determ<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> the fair value<br />

The company is required <strong>to</strong> make an <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>to</strong> a dissent<strong>in</strong>g<br />

shareholder <strong>of</strong> an amount which its direc<strong>to</strong>rs<br />

consider <strong>to</strong> be the fair value <strong>of</strong> the shares. If this is<br />

rejected by the shareholder, either party may apply<br />

<strong>to</strong> the court <strong>to</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>e the fair value. In determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

fair value, a dissenter is not entitled <strong>to</strong> receive any<br />

advantage from the fundamental change. In Canadian<br />

jurisprudence there are four (4) approved approaches<br />

<strong>to</strong> the valuation <strong>of</strong> shares as follows:<br />

• The s<strong>to</strong>ck market approach - the quoted s<strong>to</strong>ck<br />

market price <strong>of</strong> the shares<br />

• The assets approach - the valuation <strong>of</strong> the assets<br />

<strong>of</strong> the company at fair market value<br />

72 A <strong>Guide</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>Invest<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>idad <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tobago</strong> (<strong>2011</strong>)<br />

• The earn<strong>in</strong>gs or <strong>in</strong>vestment value approach - the<br />

capitalization <strong>of</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>able earn<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

• Some comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> above three (3) approaches.<br />

The Canadian courts have established that no s<strong>in</strong>gle<br />

approach <strong>to</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g fair value is appropriate for<br />

all circumstances. Rather they have <strong>in</strong>dicated that the<br />

question is one <strong>of</strong> judgment, fairness <strong>and</strong> equity <strong>to</strong> be<br />

decided on all the circumstances <strong>of</strong> each case. Even<br />

with publicly traded shares, the courts have held that<br />

the s<strong>to</strong>ck market price was not appropriate where<br />

the shares are th<strong>in</strong>ly traded or a substantial block <strong>of</strong><br />

shares is held by a small group <strong>of</strong> dom<strong>in</strong>ant shareholders.<br />

Obligation <strong>of</strong> the company <strong>to</strong> pay fair value<br />

A company is forbidden <strong>to</strong> make a payment <strong>to</strong> a dissent<strong>in</strong>g<br />

shareholder if there are reasonable grounds<br />

for believ<strong>in</strong>g that the company is, or would after payment,<br />

be unable <strong>to</strong> meet its liabilities after they become<br />

due or the realizable value <strong>of</strong> the company’s<br />

assets would then be less than the aggregate <strong>of</strong> its<br />

liabilities. If the company is unable <strong>to</strong> pay, a dissenter<br />

has two choices:<br />

• He may withdraw the notice <strong>of</strong> dissent, <strong>in</strong> which<br />

case the company is deemed <strong>to</strong> consent <strong>to</strong> withdrawal<br />

<strong>and</strong> the shareholder is re<strong>in</strong>stated <strong>to</strong> his<br />

full status <strong>of</strong> shareholder.<br />

• He may reta<strong>in</strong> the status <strong>of</strong> claimant aga<strong>in</strong>st the<br />

company <strong>to</strong> be paid as soon as the company is<br />

lawfully able <strong>to</strong> do so. If liquidation follows, his<br />

claim would rank subord<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>to</strong> all other credi<strong>to</strong>rs<br />

but <strong>in</strong> priority <strong>to</strong> other shareholders.<br />

Right <strong>to</strong> dissent<br />

The right <strong>of</strong> dissent is vested <strong>in</strong> the registered shareholder<br />

<strong>and</strong> therefore a dissent by an unregistered<br />

beneficial owner is a nullity. Additionally, the dissent<br />

must be exercised <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> the shares or<br />

all <strong>of</strong> a class <strong>of</strong> shares <strong>in</strong> the name <strong>of</strong> the registered<br />

shareholder. This creates a very serious practical<br />

problem <strong>in</strong> the case <strong>of</strong> shares which are registered <strong>in</strong><br />

the names <strong>of</strong> trustees, deposi<strong>to</strong>ry agencies, brokerage<br />

firms or other nom<strong>in</strong>ees if some but not all <strong>of</strong> the<br />

beneficial shareholders wish <strong>to</strong> exercise their dissent<br />

rights. The framers <strong>of</strong> the Canadian Act obviously believed<br />

that the advantage <strong>of</strong> certa<strong>in</strong>ty outweighs the<br />

practical difficulties which will be faced by nom<strong>in</strong>ees<br />

hold<strong>in</strong>g shares on behalf <strong>of</strong> beneficial owners who<br />

have vary<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terests.<br />

Amalgamation<br />

Provision for company amalgamation<br />

The Companies Act allows two or more companies,<br />

<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g hold<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> subsidiary companies <strong>to</strong><br />

be amalgamated <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ue as one. Where this<br />

is done these companies become fused or consolidated<br />

as a s<strong>in</strong>gle corporate entity. This fused entity<br />

is entitled <strong>to</strong> all <strong>of</strong> the properties, rights, benefits <strong>and</strong><br />

assets <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> the former companies. It is also subject<br />

<strong>to</strong> all <strong>of</strong> the liabilities <strong>and</strong> obligations <strong>of</strong> the former<br />

companies. These provisions are among the most<br />

practical <strong>and</strong> useful features <strong>of</strong> the Companies Act.<br />

Key features <strong>of</strong> amalgamation are that: it avoids the<br />

necessity <strong>and</strong> expense <strong>of</strong> transferr<strong>in</strong>g assets <strong>to</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle<br />

entity; <strong>and</strong> pre-exist<strong>in</strong>g contracts rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> place<br />

<strong>and</strong> do not need <strong>to</strong> be assigned.<br />

Amalgamation is therefore a very desirable mechanism<br />

<strong>to</strong> effect the reconstruction <strong>of</strong> conglomerates or

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!