All-Share Merger, Dissentient Shareholder and Court Sanction
Palmline Agro Ltd and Greenfield Mills Ltd are private companies. Palmline has 60 shareholders; Greenfield has 40. Both boards agree an all-share merger: Palmline will acquire Greenfield and issue shares to Greenfield shareholders. Greenfield's 12% shareholder, Mr Bello, says the exchange ratio undervalues Greenfield and he will not be bound. No court meeting has been held. The scheme document says approval will be by 'majority of shareholders present' and that dissentients will be 'compulsorily acquired'. The companies plan to file with CAC and close in six weeks. The articles of both companies contain transfer restrictions; no independent valuation is attached to the scheme; SEC has not been consulted. Palmline's shares are unquoted; Greenfield's largest shareholder, holding 35%, supports the merger.
1. What procedure and approval thresholds apply to the proposed all-share merger?
Read the worked answer
The transaction is a merger or scheme of arrangement between two private companies. Under CAMA 2020, the boards must approve a scheme, prepare a scheme document with the exchange ratio and material terms, and apply to the court for an order convening meetings of the members of each company. The statutory meeting must be properly noticed and supplied with the scheme and any valuation. Approval requires the statutory majority: a majority in number representing at least 75% in value of the members present and voting, unless the articles or court order impose more. After approval, the scheme must be sanctioned by the court. The court will consider fairness, disclosure, and the interests of dissentients. CAC registration follows, and SEC approval or notification may be required depending on the companies' status and the securities law. The six-week timetable is unrealistic if court and regulatory steps are included. The scheme document's reference to 'majority present' is wrong because it omits the value threshold.
2. Can Mr Bello be bound despite his 12% objection?
Read the worked answer
Yes, potentially. In a scheme of arrangement, a dissenting minority is bound if the statutory majority approves the scheme and the court sanctions it. Mr Bello's 12% cannot veto the scheme merely by objecting. But he can oppose the scheme at the court meeting and at the sanction hearing. He can argue that the exchange ratio is unfair, that the scheme document is misleading, that no independent valuation was provided, and that the majority is acting oppressively. The court has discretion and may refuse sanction if the scheme is not fair or if the statutory procedure was not followed. The phrase 'compulsorily acquired' is not self-executing; compulsory acquisition requires statutory authority and proper procedure. If the scheme is sanctioned, Bello will be bound, but he may have appraisal or exit rights if the scheme or CAMA 2020 provides them. He should seek an independent valuation and consider a minority oppression claim if the process is abusive.
3. What should the boards do before filing, and what are the main risks?
Read the worked answer
The boards should: obtain an independent valuation; ensure the scheme document contains full disclosure of the exchange ratio, assets, liabilities, and directors' interests; check the articles for transfer restrictions and class rights; convene board meetings with proper notice; apply to court for meeting orders; and prepare for SEC and CAC filings. They should not state that dissentients will be 'compulsorily acquired' unless the legal basis is clear. Risks: the court may refuse sanction because of inadequate disclosure or unfairness; the timetable may slip; dissentients may seek injunctions; the transaction may trigger tax, competition, or sector regulatory approvals; and the merger may be challenged as an oppression of minority shareholders. The boards should also consider whether a share exchange or asset transfer is more appropriate than a scheme, and whether creditor consents are needed. They should document every step.