Dispensation of shareholders’ and creditors’ meetings for listed entities in amalgamation proceedings

 With many wholly owned subsidiary companies merging with their listed holding companies, there were differing views on whether the meetings of the shareholders and the creditors of such listed entities are necessarily required to be conducted or they can be dispensed with. The rationale for this was also in question since the merger was only between wholly owned subsidiaries with their holding companies where there was no dilution in the shareholding of the listed entity nor was there a compromise with the creditors of the holding company.

Read More: https://tlegal.com/blog-details/dispensation-of-shareholders-and-creditors-meetings-for-listed-entities-in-amalgamation-proceedings

Relevant Provisions

Before proceeding to discuss the recent judicial precedents, it is helpful to take a glance at the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). In terms of the Section 230(1) of the Act, for a compromise or arrangement to be fructified, a meeting of creditors or class of creditors or a meeting of members or class of members is a requirement. There is an exception to this requirement when more than 90% (ninety percent) of the creditors and/or the members file their consent and no-objection affidavit towards the scheme of merger as provided under Section 230(9) of the Act and Rule 5 of Companies (Compromises, Arrangements, and Amalgamation) Rules, 2016.

Any compromise or an arrangement may affect the shareholding, and the financial position of the companies involved in such compromise or arrangement and as such, the consent of more than three-fourth of the total value of the creditors and members is required in their respective meetings for such compromise or arrangement to go through.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Contract Labour Deployment in India – Demystifying the Future Conceived by the Code on Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions, 2020

  The business of human resource deployment by contractors for their clients has grown and evolved globally. In India, the contractor-sourced industrial workforce grew by about 293% between 2002-03 and 2021-22.[1] Recently, India has unfurled four labour codes that revamp its existing labour laws to meet the needs of the Indian workforce such as contract labour deployment. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (“ CLRA ”) predominantly constitutes the applicable law on contract labour in India. It will be replaced by the Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions, 2020 (“ OSH-Code ”) from a date, pending to be notified (“ Effective Date ”). This article seeks to evaluate the material reforms introduced by the OSH-Code regarding contract labour deployment: a. Revised Applicability Threshold : The OSH-Code has increased the applicability threshold of contract labour related compliance to engagement of at least 50 contract labour personnel, as opposed...
Read more

The Intersection of Privacy Rights and Bail: Implications for the Criminal Justice System

 The question of privacy as a fundamental component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has long been a matter of legal contention, with various judgments reflecting a spectrum of judicial opinions. This debate reached a watershed moment in 2017 with the landmark Puttaswamy [1] judgment, in which the Supreme Court unequivocally established the right to privacy as a fundamental right, underscoring its vital importance in protecting individual dignity and autonomy. Recently however, the issue has resurfaced as the Supreme Court examined complexities of privacy in the digital era, bringing to light the ongoing challenges and significance of the said right, amid rapid technological developments and increasing state surveillance under criminal jurisprudence. Background A Nigerian national faced charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was subsequently arrested in the year 2014. However, in the year 2022,...
Read more

The Doctrine of Group of Companies: A Modern Approach to Consent in Arbitration Proceedings?

 Party autonomy is a foundational pillar in arbitration proceedings. An arbitration agreement reflects the parties’ willingness to be legally bound within the contours of that agreement. That is to say that parties to an arbitration agreement mutually consent to bestow jurisdiction upon a court and/or tribunal to decide certain disputes by their choice of law. However, in recent demanding times, in order to meet the ends of justice, courts and tribunals, under certain exceptional circumstances, have allowed extension of arbitration agreements to bind non-signatories. This article seeks to briefly review such exceptional circumstances under which courts and tribunals have approved joinder of non-signatories as party to the arbitration agreement by invoking the Group of Companies doctrine and the implications drawn by such joinder in absence of consent to be bound by the arbitration agreement. APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS In broad terms, the doctrine i...
Read more