In this series of blog, we will discuss certain considerations for an acquirer of a publicly-listed target when deciding whether to proceed with a take-over bid or a plan of arrangement.

See Chinese version below [中文版参阅下文].

  • Hostile/Friendly. If the offer is not supported by the target's board, the bidder will almost always choose to proceed by way of take-over bid. Although there is one recent example of a hostile plan of arrangement, the
    mechanics of forcing the target company to call a shareholders' meeting and apply for a court order usually make a plan of arrangement impractical in this scenario. Advantage > Take-over bid
  • Flexibility of Structure. A plan of arrangement enables the bidder to be creative in structuring the transaction in order to realize any commercial and tax objectives of the deal. Courts are capable of dealing with complex acquisition structures and have affirmed that a central purpose of the arrangement provisions in the corporate statute is to enable this. In contrast, a take-over bid permits only a plain vanilla acquisition of
    securities. Advantage > Plan of Arrangement
  • US Shareholders. If the bidder is offering securities as consideration, and there are shareholders of the target resident in the United States, a plan of arrangement offers a major advantage. Because the arrangement is
    approved by a court, securities issued pursuant to the arrangement are generally exempt from any registration requirements in the United States. In a take-over bid, there are a couple of options to avoid registration, but
    they add complexity and may not be available if the US shareholder base is large.  Advantage > Plan of Arrangement
  • Forum for Disgruntled Stakeholders. A plan of arrangement is ultimately subject to approval by the court.  The court will need to determine that the plan is fair and reasonable to the securityholders affected by it.
    If there are securityholders that oppose the transaction, the court will hear their views before making its determination. Although approval by the securityholders is an important factor in the court's decision, it is by
    no means determinative. The risk that a court will not approve the transaction or afford other securityholders whose legal rights are affected to vote on the transaction can, in some circumstances, inject significant
    uncertainty into a deal. In contrast, there is no approval required by a court in the context of a take-over bid, and no obvious forum for dissident stakeholders to complain.  Advantage > Take-over Bid

Canadian Going Private Transactions - Regulatory Approvals – Other Statutory Regimes 

Some Canadian businesses are regulated by statutes that affect them uniquely and are therefore highly relevant to a potential acquirer. Banks and insurance companies, for example, have ownership limits imposed by law. Other businesses that are subject to a high level of regulation in Canada include the transportation, broadcasting and telecommunications industries.

要约收购还是安排计划: 主要考量因素 - 第一篇


  • 恶意/善意。如果目标公司董事会不支持收购交易,则收购方几乎总是选择通过要约方式进行。虽然最近有一个恶意的安排计划例子,但强迫目标公司召开股东大会并向法院申请法令的机制通常会使安排计划不切实际。优势>要约收购
  • 结构的灵活性。安排计划使收购方能够创造性地构建交易,以实现交易的任何商业和税收目标。法院能够处理复杂的并购结构,并确认公司法中安排条款的主要目的是实现这一目标。相比之下,要约收购只允许普通的证券收交易。优势>安排计划
  • 美国股民。如果要约收购方提供证券作为对价,并且目标公司的股东有美国居民,则安排计划将具有重大优势。由于该安排是由法院批准的,因此根据该安排发行的证券通常在美国不受任何证监局注册要求的限制。在要约收购中,虽然有几种选择方式可以避免注册,但是它们却增加了复杂性,并且如果美国股东基础庞大,可能无法适用。优势>安排计划
  • 股东声张不满的平台。安排计划最终须经法院批准。法院需要确定该计划对受其影响的持股人是否公平并合理。如果存有证券持有人反对该交易,法院将在作出决定之前听取他们的意见。尽管获得持股人的批准是法院做出决定的重要因素,但这绝不是决定性的。在某些情况下,法院不批准其交易,或让合法权益受到影响的其他证券持有人对交易进行投票的风险可能会给交易带来重大不确定性。相反,在要约收购的情况下,法院无需批准,也没有明显的给持不同政见的利益攸关方声张不满的平台。



To view the original article click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.