"FREEZE OUT": TAKEOVER AND ACQUISITION OF MINORITY INTEREST

The term ‘freeze out’ is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary1 as,“an action taken in an attempt to eliminate or reduce minority interest in a corporation.”

For example, a Company ‘ABC’ has 55% shareholding in Target Company ‘ABC’. If another company 'XYZ’ which aims at purchasing  the remaining 45% shares and then compensates the minority shareholders in cash according to registered value , it may be said that the minority shareholders have been Freeze out of Company ‘ABC’. 

The Companies Act, 2013 has brought an mechanism where the minority stakeholders are forced out of the company or corporate mechanism with an intend to reduce the companies litigation against the minority stakeholders. this act has given provisions which enables the acquirer or the person acting in the consent of the majority or the controlling stakeholders to become the registered shareholder of 90% or more of the issued equity of the targeted company or their own company either listed or not. the acquire or the representative of the majority stake holder needs to notify the minority stakeholders about their intentions to buy the remaining share. in some situations the minority share holder may offer their share Suo-Motto to the majority or controlling share holders. The Companies Act, 2013 also states that when the process of freeze out or minority buy back for a listed company is being done the prices of the shares of the minority shareholders will be determined by the SEBI regulations and will be carried out by the registered valuer. Now the methods of ‘freeze out’ according to the companies act, 2013 can be categorized in 4 ways, they are (i) Compulsory Acquisition or Acquisition of shares of dissenting shareholders, (ii) Purchase of Minority Shareholding, (iii) Scheme of Arrangement4(Section 230 to 234) and (iv) Reduction of Capital5. These provisions are do also protect the minority shareholders. After various corporate restructuring this provision have been brought. now this provision make freeze out as an legal option. [1]

There is a great dilemma involved as well, where the controlling share holders have given importance and have raised concerned for the minority shareholders on the other side there are those controlling share holders where they are interested in benefiting themselves and the firm rather than the minority stakeholders.

The concept of freeze out is relatively new and has developed in past decade. but then the freeze out in India has increased rapidly. this area has become intense and under constant scrutiny. this situation has been give a lot of  press coverage and media. if we anticipate the future we see rise in these freeze out as it has been legalised and most of the company in india are registered. There have been give number of reforms for these law but no legislation has been done. There is undiscovered potential in it which may have a good effect or a bad.

 2. What is a “FREEZE OUT” and HOW DOES IT AFFECTS THE MINORITY INTEREST

A “FREEZE OUT” is a move made by a company's larger part shareholders that weights minority holders to offer their stakes in the organization. An assortment of moves might be considered stop out strategies, for example, the end of minority shareholder representatives or the refusal to proclaim profits. It is a transaction where the majority shareholders are trying to acquire the rest of the shares. “FREEZE OUT” can be done with its own company as well as some targeted company. It can be done within the corporate veil also. [2]

 For example, if the target firm is ABC Ltd and the 55% of shares are owned and controlled by another company QWE Ltd. if now the  QWE Ltd would decide to acquire 100% of the company. The minority shareholders would receive consideration for their shares and it would be transferred to QWE Ltd now if all the minority share holders are freezed out it is likely that the ABC Ltd will no longer be a public company and become a private company. some common methods for these freeze out are( In context of the above example):-

1.    the controlling or the majority shareholder QWE Ltd will simply acquire or buy the shares of the minority by giving them monetary considerations. in this transaction the ABC Ltd will have no involvements.

2.    the ABC Ltd would simply acquire or buy back of the minority share holder by paying them monetary considerations. which would effect in reduction of capital and then the QWE Ltd would remain the single or majority shareholder. this transaction is between the minority share holder and the company ABC. the QWE Ltd has no direct involvement accept it exercising t majority rights in approving the transaction.

3.    the QWE Ltd may decide to merge with ABC Ltd. now this merger will result in the non QWE Ltd shareholder or the minority shareholder receiving appropriate monetary considerations. in this scenario the minority shareholder can or may ask share in the QWE Ltd. in this transaction the QWE Ltd, ABC Ltd and the minority shareholders are all involved.[3]

any of this methods can be used for freeze out, but the concerns which is raises and the dilemma here is that the controlling or the majority shareholders have the power and right to decide the timing and the pricing of the freeze out. here the opinion of the minority shareholders are not relevant and not asked because now according to the company act,2013 only majority is required in these transactions. now at core of these scenario lies a prospect of whether the majority shareholder or the controlling party may become opportunistic and can rule against the favour of the minority shareholders. imagine a situation where the controlling shareholders decide to freeze out knowing that a target company is going to receive huge profits, and therefore by freezing out the minority of their right in the shares and the profit that is going to come to the company or when the controlling share holders see decline or incline in the share market and have anticipated a profit and can freeze out the minorities before the profits matures. and further one can imagine that the controlling shareholder may take a deliberated decision that reduce the value of the target company in the short run and driving down the profits of that company and then due to this situations the majority shareholder would offer low prices for the freeze out of minority shareholders.[4]

We have seen the methods of freeze outs and how manipulated it can be, now let's see what this effects on the minority share holders.

     I.        the minority shareholders would be likely to become any minority shareholders of any company as they do not trust the management and has the fear of being freezed out of the company without their profits.

   II.        the minority shareholder would withdraw from investing as they do not see proper safeguard against this freeze out as it only requires the majority votes.

 III.        the minority would see the discounts when the go for buying particular shares as an likelihood of being freezed out of the company eventually. the minority shareholders loses trust.

 IV.        this behaviour of the minority shareholders would result is reduction of capital and it would get very difficult for the company to raise capital.

 

3. Indian law on "freeze out"

In this part we see the existing law in India regarding freeze outs and see to which extent does it protect the interest of the minorities while seeing the possible outcomes of freeze outs. Freeze outs can be done by various methods and the laws also changes as the method changes.

3A. LEGAL POSITION OF FREEZE OUT IN INDIA

I.                 Section 395 of Company Act, 1956-

An acquirer organization may make an offer to the shareholders of an objective organization under a plan or contract including the exchange of shares of the objective organization. If the shareholders holding estimation of 90% of shares in the objective organization acknowledge the previously mentioned offer, the acquirer organization has the privilege to give a notice to the disagreeing shareholders to secure their shares. Further, under Section 395, if the acquirer organization or its auxiliary holds over 10% of the estimation of the shares of the objective organization, the offer is just legitimate in the event that it is endorsed by holders of 90% of the shares of the objective organization, excluding the shares held by the procured. Such supporting shareholders ought to constitute at the very least three-fourths in number of the holders of those shares. This arrangement protects the interests of the minority just to the degree that they may approach the Court, notwithstanding, take note of that this arrangement does not contain any rules at the valuation of offer cost.[5]

II.                 Section 235 of Company Act, 2013:-

This is the relating arrangement to Section 395 of the 1956 Act, the acquirer organization makes an offer to procure the shares of the objective organization under a plan or contract, which is required to be acknowledged by at the very least shareholders holding 90% in estimation of shares of the objective organization. The acquirer should then serve a notice to the disagreeing shareholders, who may thusly approach the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") to look for proper cure. The aggregate or thought got for the shares in the objective organization must be dispensed inside 60 days from the date of receipt of such total by the transferor organization. The 1956 Act does not endorse any such day and age.

III.                 Section 236 of Company Act, 2013:-

An acquirer element or a man acting working together with such acquirer which holds no less than 90% of the issued value share capital by method for an amalgamation, share trade, transformation of securities or whatever other reason, may inform the organization of their goal to purchase the rest of the value offers. Segment 236(2) accommodates a pre-decided leave value which is come to at by an enlisted valuer according to the endorsed rules. The minority shareholders may likewise offer to the lion's share shareholders to buy the minority value shareholdings under Section 236(3). Encourage, without a physical conveyance of shares by the shareholders inside the time indicated by the organization, the share testaments should be considered to be crossed out, and the transferor organization might be approved to issue partakes in lieu of the drop shares and finish the exchange. Besides, when the larger part shareholder neglects to get full buy of the shares of the minority value shareholders, the arrangements of area 236 will at present apply to the leftover minorities, in spite of the fact that the shares of the organization of the lingering value shareholders have been delisted and the time of one year or the period determined in the SEBI controls have slipped by. once the shares of the minority have been obtained, 75% of the minority shareholders may arrange a higher cost for the individuals and the extra remuneration might be imparted to adjust minority shareholders. There is no arrangement for holding a different meeting of the minority shareholders to vote against the purchase out. Besides, there is by all accounts a cover between Section 235 and Section 236.

IV.                 Section 230 to 234 of Company Act, 2013:-

A plan of course of action may allow the acquirer to buy offers held by the minority shareholders, in this way affecting a Freeze out. The organization is required to make an application to High Court to assemble gatherings of the different classes of shareholders. The plan is required to be endorsed by a lion's share in number speaking to 75% in estimation of each class of shareholders, present and voting, in each meeting of each class. On getting the endorsement of the shareholders, the organization is required to approach the High Court for authorizing of the plan. The High Court on hearing portrayals made by invested individuals, if fulfilled, passes a request endorsing the plan. This type of freeze out is more typical than mandatory obtaining as it requires endorsement by half of the shareholders in number and 75% in estimation of shares, which is less burdensome than the 90% required on account of obligatory securing. The part of the Court and voting privileges of the shareholders in a plan of course of action offer the minority an insignificant standard of insurance.

An organization may, subject to affirmation by the NCLT and going of exceptional determination by the shareholders, diminish the share capital by repurchasing a few shares and thusly wiping out them under Section 66 of the 2013 Act. This is the most appealing and slightest difficult strategy for Freezeing out minority shareholders since it requires a larger part of 75% of votes by shareholders and not 75% of votes from each class as in the plan of course of action or assent of 90% of the shareholders as in mandatory obtaining.

The lawful position on freezeing out of minority shareholders through lessening of share capital was chosen by the Bombay High Court in Sandvik Asia Limited v. Bharat Kumar Padamsi. The Court held that,"when it is built up that non-promoter shareholders are being paid reasonable estimation of their shares, at no time of time it is even recommended by them that the sum that is being paid is any way less and that notwithstanding greater part of the non-promoter shareholders having voted for the determination demonstrates that the Court won't be supported in withholding its authorize to the resolution."

Further, the Bombay High Court in the 2014 Cadbury India Limited, set out the accompanying rules to be sought after in matters of minority purchase outs:

The Courts obligation lies in guaranteeing that the plan is not against the general population intrigue, is reasonable and just and not nonsensical, does not unjustifiably victimize or preference a class of shareholders and draws a harmony between the business insight of the shareholders communicated at legitimately gathered gatherings. The expression "bias" in connection to valuation of a plan would mean something more than simply accepting not as much as what a shareholder longings, being a purposeful endeavor to constrain a class of shareholders to strip themselves of their possessions at a rate far underneath what is sensible, reasonable and just..

3B. Delisting-

Delisting is favourable for the controllers on the grounds that the organization is first brought outside the domain of the securities laws relevant to recorded organizations (which are managed by SEBI) that empowers it to execute the freeze out through a less cumbersome legitimate administration than when the organization is listed.

 The SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009 (the "Delisting Regulations") empower an organization to delist its value shares on the stock trade inasmuch as general society (or non‐controlling) shareholders are given a leave opportunity. Aside from the objective board's endorsement, the delisting proposition must be affirmed by a 75% larger part of the votes cast by shareholders through postal poll after exposure of material realities.

 The delisting procedure is embraced through an offer made by the controller to obtain the shares of the minorities with a specific end goal to guarantee that the leave cost is reasonable for the general population shareholders, the Delisting Regulations endorse a detailed value revelation handle through the technique known as "invert book building". Under this strategy, the organization must settle a story value, which is the base cost at which the delisting occurs. The minority share holders are then ready to put their offers on the online electronic framework at or over the floor price. The last offer cost might be resolved as the cost at which the most extreme number of value shares is offered by the general population shareholders. However, the controller can either acknowledge or dismiss the offer. On the off chance that the offer is acknowledged, then the controller needs to procure the offered offers at the last offer price.[6]

The delisting procedure seemingly presents undue preferred standpoint to the objective and its controller. They can decide the season of delisting, advantage from the data asymmetry that works to support them, and exercise finish control over the delisting process. However, these variables are apparently enough balanced the Delisting Regulations, which give noteworthy power on the general population shareholders. It is subsequently not shocking that the delisting system is considered excessively difficult for controllers, because of which it has either not been conjured much of the time, or has not brought about a fruitful delisting as the controllers for the most part observe the found cost to be excessive. Controllers have rather decided on different instruments to actualize a freeze out straightforwardly without experiencing the delisting procedure first.[7]

3C.  Methods of FreezeOut-

The three primary methods of achieving a freezeout are:

(i) compulsory acquisition of shares

(ii) a scheme of arrangement

(iii) a scheme of reduction of capital.

1.  Compulsory Acquisition -

 Just a solitary statutory arrangement explicitly examines a necessary obtaining of shares held by minorities. This is planned to empower an acquirer to freeze minorities stake holders after a takeover offer made on the organization. As needs be, the place an acquirer makes an offer to procure shares of an organization, which has been acknowledged inside four months by no less than 90% of the shareholders to whom such offer was made, the acquirer is qualified for freezing rest of the shareholders (who have not noted the acknowledged offer) to necessarily obtain their shares.

 The necessary securing must be on an indistinguishable terms from the underlying offer regardless of whether in real money or shares. There is no requirement for earlier court endorsement, however contradicting shareholders can approach the court (which is  the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)) to look for suitable cures ex post.

 The primary purpose behind this is the prerequisite that the acquirer must get acknowledgments from shareholders holding 90% of the shares to whom the offer has been made. This can be hard to accomplish, as should be obvious from an outline. In fact, given the cumbersome way of the arrangements identifying with mandatory acquisitions, acquirers have endeavored substitute arrangement structures to get around its strictures (e.g., offers held by related gatherings are not explicitly considered the controllers' under the arrangement and acquirers have attempted to include these shares the 90% acknowledgments), however the Indian courts have ventured into and prevented such structures.  In light of this, it is impossible that the obligatory securing instrument will be turned to aside from in clear situations where the controller can marshal the imperative acknowledgments.[8]

  2. Scheme of Arrangement -

The Companies Act contains definite arrangements that allow an organization to go into bargains and game plans with its shareholders or creditors. The procedure starts with the organization applying to the High Court to gather gatherings of the different shareholder classes. The plan must be endorsed by a larger part in number speaking to 75% in estimation of each class of shareholders present and voting, in partitioned gatherings for each class. Once endorsement is gotten, the organization should again approach the High Court for authorize of the plan. The High Court will hold hearings in which invested individuals may speak to themselves and, if fulfilled, issue a request endorsing the scheme. Although a plan of course of action likewise requires a high voting limit (over half in number of shareholders and 75% in estimation of shares held, hereinafter alluded to as the plan larger part), it is less cumbersome than the 90% required for a necessary obtaining and numerous controllers might be very much set to meet the plan lion's share edge.

The plan larger part necessity is not particularly material to minorities unless they have an alternate class of shares and in that sense is not as defensive as the 90% prerequisite. Also, if a plan of course of action includes the organization (instead of the controllers) securing offers from the minorities, the assets accessible with the organization are used towards the freeze out with no immediate effect on the controller's accounts.

3. Reduction of Capital-   

The Companies Act accommodates the diminishment of share capital of a company. Such a lessening includes a repurchase of a few (not all) offers by the organization and a resulting cancelation of those shares. A decrease of capital might be affected on a few grounds, which are just illustrative in nature, and organizations do have adequate adaptability to lessen share capital for other reasons. with a specific end goal to start a diminishment of capital, the organization should first propose the decrease to be affirmed at a meeting of shareholders. Such endorsement of shareholders must be by method for a unique determination at a general meeting, which requires a greater part of 75% of the votes cast at the meeting. From that point, the organization is required to make an application to the significant High Court for its endorsement. On the off chance that the High Court is fulfilled in the wake of hearing the important gatherings, it will accord its authorize to the decrease of capital. The diminishment will produce results once the court's request is recorded with the Registrar of Companies.

 A decrease of capital is an alluring technique for fulfilling a freeze out. To begin with, the required larger part for shareholders' endorsement is the slightest burdensome, as it only requires a dominant part of 75% of the votes surveyed by the shareholders (not 75% of the votes surveyed by each class of shareholders like a plan of course of action or the assent of 90% of the minorities as in an obligatory obtaining). Henceforth, a huge controller will be in a position to without any help acquire adequate support for a freeze out without the prerequisite of any support or simultaneousness at all from the minorities.

The assets of the organization are used to pay shareholders whose shares are as a rule necessarily gained (similar to the case in a few sorts of plans of course of action). The controllers don't endure any direct monetary cost in spite of the fact that they advantage by acquiring full proprietorship privileges of the organization. In perspective of the settle for what is most convenient option forced on decrease of capital as a strategy for freeze out, it is as a rule progressively utilized by controllers with the end goal that a mind-boggling number of the revealed freeze outs in the most recent decade in India have taken after this method.

3D. Safeguarding the Interests of Minorities-

In each of the freezeout methods, the law seeks to balance the interests of the controllers and the minorities. Courts in India tend to allow freezeouts when they are satisfied on two counts:

 (i) fairness in process; (ii) fairness in price.

To analyze various features of each of the freezeout methods against the parameters of process as well as price and seek to establish that they do not adequately safeguard the interests of minorities.

 1. Minority Shareholder Voting -

As of not long ago, there was no broad statutory or case law necessity in India that precluded a shareholder, from voting regardless of the possibility that that shareholder was occupied with the exchange. Changes have encouraged minority insurance in the event of related gathering exchanges by disentitling intrigued shareholders from voting, these changes don't have any significant bearing, at present, to the freeze out structures standard in India. This is on the grounds that the 2013 Act changes apply to exchanges between the organization and a related gathering, not a plan of game plan or decrease of capital where the organization just obtains or diminishes the shares held by the minorities. So also, SEBI's current changes identify with particular exchanges with controllers, and don't cover the great freeze out techniques in Indian organizations where the controller is not a gathering (but instead the resultant recipient). In any occasion, SEBI's administration represents just recorded organizations, and not those that embrace freeze outs post‐delisting. In light of this, minority voting backing is statutorily required in just a single kind of freeze out – the obligatory securing. This is on the grounds that the Companies Act requires, that 90% of the shareholders to whom an offer is made (i.e., 90% of the minorities) must acknowledge. To that degree, it really speaks to voting by a "larger part of the minority". The plan of game plan does not, all over, give this sort of insurance. In any case, it could, if courts were innovative, allow some security to minorities by means of the necessity of particular shareholder class voting. Courts ordinarily consider shareholders to have a place with various classes if their interests are dissimilar to the point that they can't be relied upon to choose in a typical meeting or in the event that they are being given differential treatment under the scheme. In spite of the fact that a potential technique for security, no court has yet administered on whether such separate class voting in favor of minorities and controllers is vital in a plan of arrangement. The Companies Act does not explicitly conceive class gatherings of shareholders and no shareholder is precluded from voting. Minorities have regularly tested freeze outs through decrease of capital on the ground that this procedure is unjustifiable to minorities who have been steamrolled by the voting quality of the controllers. They have contended that since the diminishment of capital is not uniform because of the different treatment presented on controllers and minorities individually, they should be dealt with as discrete classes. In perspective of this, the entry of a determination for decrease of capital is a fait accompli when the controller holds no less than 75% voting power, which is frequently the situation when they start a freeze out.  

 2. Oversight by Courts-

There is some remaining legal oversight of freeze outs that fluctuates with the technique used to direct the freeze out. Although under an obligatory securing no court endorsement is important to effectuate an exchange, a contradicting minority may at present approach the court ex post to limit such a freeze out. A court activities such a power just if the proposition is observed to be very dangerous or harming to the interests of the company or is composed in a way that unjustifiably benefits the controllers. Courts are for the most part not slanted to adjust the terms of the offer or even decide the reasonable estimation of the shares in order to force the controller to procure the minority offers at a reasonable price. On the other hand, the part of the courts in a plan of course of action and decrease of capital are more broad. In the first place, the court's endorsement is an essential to the execution of the freeze out. Second, there is a decently developed law on the part of Indian courts in favoring plans of course of action and diminishments of capital. The court's ward is more broad under a plan of course of action than under a diminishment of capital.[9]

In a plan of course of action, a court has the ability to look at coincidental and subordinate inquiries, and to be fulfilled that the plan is true blue and in light of a legitimate concern for shareholders. In any case, courts for the most part follow up on the assumption that the plan is in light of a legitimate concern for the shareholders, and it is for the gathering testing the plan to certifiably demonstrate that the plan is unfair.

In Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., the Supreme Court watched that while the court can't go about as an elastic stamp and consequently affirm a plan, it can't practice investigative locale and minutely examine the scheme. In a diminishment of capital, the court's part is still more restricted. The general decide is that a lessening is viewed as a residential matter for the organization, and the court will practice its watchfulness just to analyze whether the decrease is reasonable and equitable. This is at change with the practice followed in different locales, for example, Delaware, where courts play out a more noticeable part in the improvement of law and in characterizing the rights and commitments of different corporate performing artists.

 3. Valuation and Pricing -

In considering whether a freeze out exchange is reasonable for the minorities, the cost at which they are being freezeed out expect awesome significance. The way of value assurance relies on upon the way of the procedure took after. In such a plan, there is no hazard that minority disagreeing shareholders will be punished for remaining outside the underlying offer. They can't in this manner be pressured into tolerating the controller's offer. On the other hand, extraordinary elements work when a freeze out is started through a plan of course of action or a decrease of capital. In both these cases, courts have received comprehensively comparable standards. In spite of the fact that the evaluating of freeze outs is regularly tested, courts have a tendency to concede to the master valuation reports of bookkeeping firms or venture investors.

The constrained extent of audit exudes from the Supreme Court's choice in Hindustan Lever Employees' Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., where the court focused on that "[a] organization court does not practice a re-appraising ward. This standard has been broadly trailed by courts in India while supporting freeze outs through either a plan of course of action or lessening of capital. Therefore, without a patent blunder or illicitness in the valuation work out, minorities are probably not going to be effective in testing the cost at which the freeze out is being actualized. Given the subjectivity of the valuation procedure, which depends on the data gave by the organization (i.e., the controller), minorities can acquire little solace that they are getting a reasonable cost and that their advantages have been ensured. The restricted examination by courts brings about another marvel. For instance, with regards to a delisting took after by a freeze out, this is probably going to bring about wide dissimilarity between the cost at which a controller first delists the organization and the freeze out cost. While minorities have a voice in deciding the cost for a delisting, it is significantly debilitated on account of a freeze out. In a delisting offer, the controller is to find the cost through the "turn around book building" handle under the Delisting Regulations. As the procedure is straightforward, the minorities can screen costs at which different shareholders are making their offers before deciding the cost at which they make their own offer. As it were, they cannot just exercise their decision in an informed way, additionally it is they who find the cost for delisting. Differentiate the invert book building process in a delisting with the valuation‐based procedure received in a freeze out through a plan of course of action or lessening of capital. Shareholders don't have any decision from the earlier. The controllers decide the estimating, yet with the support of master valuation reports. Minorities just have responsive forces to challenge the valuation, with the onus lying upon them to exhibit mistakes in the valuation procedure took after on the off chance that they observe it to be unjustifiable to their interests. The absence of chance for minorities to take an interest in the value disclosure component raises the hazard that such shareholders might be forced into offering their shares in a delisting offer as opposed to clutching them taking after the delisting. In all, there is no target system for touching base at a reasonable cost in a freeze out that ensures the interests of the minorities. Courts have cut out for themselves just a constrained part. This and the subjectivity required in the value assurance prepare leaves minorities in a somewhat powerless position.[10]

4. View of other administrations and their laws

While there are a few techniques to freeze out minority shareholders in India, the assurance given to the same is inadequate. Given this shortage, we look at the position in remote wards, in particular, United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Canada.

In English Law, under the Companies Act, 2006, the acquirer may Freeze out the minority shareholders utilizing strategies fundamentally the same as those utilized as a part of India i.e. necessary procurement, plan of game plan and lessening of capital. While the limits and techniques are comparative in both Indian and English laws, the legal understanding and rights stood to minority shareholders are distinctive. For example, in Hellenic and General Trust Ltd., the Court, while talking about "most of the minority" lead in a plan of course of action, held that a backup of the acquirer had an unmistakable enthusiasm from the minorities and henceforth each must constitute a different class. Such a view has not been taken in India yet. English courts have discredited Freeze outs where they have been done in a way that damages minorities' interests. Further, under the plan in English law, the notice that will be sent to the minority shareholders clarifies the results and impact of the plan of course of action on the minority shareholders.[11]

In the United States, it is the Delaware State laws (which are exceptionally depended on for mergers) which give freeze out methods: (1) long-frame merger, wherein the acquirer can't buy no less than at least 90% of the objectives offers and subsequently requires an extraordinary meeting to get the imperative shareholder's votes and (2) short shape merger, wherein the acquirer can buy no less than 90% of the objectives shares and getting the votes of the objective's shareholders is not required. Minority shareholders have two cures against Freeze out: (1) Appraisal Rights and (2) Fiduciary Duty Class Actions. The evaluation rights under state corporate law statutes entitle contradicting shareholders in a Freeze out merger to urge the acquirer to pay them a court-decided reasonable incentive for their shares. Encourage, the Delaware Fiduciary Duty Class Action (FDCA) has advanced throughout the years. The FDCA is accessible paying little heed to the value-based structure or thought utilized and puts the weight to demonstrate that the exchange is altogether reasonable, on the acquirer.

In Australia, under the Corporations Act, 2001 there are two techniques for Freeze out: (1) mandatory procurement taking after a takeover offer or (2) necessary obtaining in different conditions. In both these strategies, the minority shareholders have the privilege to protest the obtaining of their securities by marking a complaint shape (which goes with the notice served to them) and return it to the shareholders (90%) who endorsed the procurement. The 90% shareholders stop the protest with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ("ASIC") alongside a rundown of shareholders who objected. Once the minority complaint is cleared, the obligatory procurement continues gave that the shareholders in each class who have questioned the obtaining together hold under 10% of the shares or the Court has affirmed the securing on the premise of reasonable incentive for the securities advertised.[12]

5. Potential Reforms

The assurance of minorities in freeze out exchanges in India appears to be very constricted, particularly when contrasted and alternate nations overviewed in this article. Additionally, a freeze out is less demanding to watch and manage than different claims of mishandle or confiscation by controllers (e.g., burrowing). It along these lines appears that change of freeze out direction is a commendable approach to upgrade minority insurance.

5A. Independent Review board

Numerous purviews put accentuation on an endorsement of a freeze out by an exceptional council of executives who are free of the controllers instead of by the whole board. Currently, w[13]hile organization and securities laws in India recommend board autonomy prerequisites generally, freeze out exchanges are not required or boosted by the law to acquire an endorsement by an advisory group of autonomous chiefs. We discover justify in the audit of freeze outs by an autonomous panel engaged to choose in a way reproducing an "a safe distance" exchange. Specifically, having the capacity to have the decency of the freeze out cost surveyed by an autonomous money related counsellor would add to the freedom and believability of the decision‐making process. Although utilizing extraordinary free advisory groups for clashed exchanges, (for example, freeze outs) has barely been pervasive in India, this is probably going to change sooner rather than later as a result of the more noteworthy accentuation on board autonomy under the 2013 Act and moves by SEBI to build the dependence on free directors. The essential concern one may have with this approach is that the autonomous advisory group is presumably going to be chosen by the controlling shareholder and that raises the phantom of the board of trustees voting for the gathering who delegated them (an issue regular to nations requiring free panels for freeze outs).

5B. Fiduciary Duty and Actions

Another change may be to perceive trustee obligations from controllers to the minorities as a group. This would empower activities against the controller in a way like that talked about in the Delaware context. Although these activities may be alluring, they confront certain institutional difficulties in the Indian setting. Initially, these activities tend to work best when the adjudicator settles on choices rapidly. With regards to court choices in India, this does not appear a possible outcome. Moreover, even the Company Law Board (CLB) does not have a notoriety for acting that rapidly either. Second, these activities are exceedingly truth reliant and tend to work better when the adjudicator has generous ability in corporate matters. India's courts are principally generalist courts and don't have a tendency to have some expertise in corporate matters (past the CLB or NCLT). Thus, while we call upon the courts in India to assume a more prominent part in looking at different sorts of freeze out exchanges, especially as to their decency in process and value, we trust these measure may not be adequate all by themselves given the aforementioned examination, and they ought to be supplemented by more noteworthy administrative investigation, to which we now turn.[14]

5C. SEBI (Controlling authority)

SEBI should be given more noteworthy powers in directing freeze outs. Obviously, SEBI can just direct recorded firms and a few recorded firms first delist and after that later lead a freeze out. In such circumstances, the freeze out is outside of SEBI's purview since it includes the conduct of a private firm not a recorded one. One potential change could be to establish an authoritative arrangement expressing that SEBI has supervisory and administrative control over delisting (as it presently does) and over any take after on freeze outs directed inside one year of the de‐listing.

6. CASES STUDY

1. Sandvik Asia Limited v. Bharat Kumar Padamsi, 2009, Bombay High Court

? Sandvik Asia Ltd, on delisting, sought to dispose of the minority shareholders. Thus, initiated reduction of capital of only minority shareholders.

? Single bench rejected the scheme of reduction of capital.

? This decision got overruled by the Division Bench.

? Under section 100, reduction is permissible is “any way”. Thus selective reduction of capital was allowed.

 ? Majority of minority voted in favor of reduction.

? The minority shareholders was offered fair price for their share.[15]

2. Cadbury Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 

? “Majority of Minority” Rule Special resolution for reduction of capital (99.96% Majority, 0.04% Minority) Independent Valuation ordered by High Court on objection by minority Judgment in favour of Cadbury Public Shareholders (2.42%) Cadbury Group (97.58%) Cadbury India

? Considerations for approval by court:

1.    Had the majority of non-promoter shareholders voted in favor of the resolution?

2.    Was a fair and reasonable value being offered to the minority shareholders?

3.    Was the valuation fair, reasonable and devoid of evident faults?

? Court believed that it was not an expert on valuation. Its jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate.

 ? Commercial wisdom of majority of Minority cannot be disregarded.[16]

7. CONCLUSION

Freezeouts are an example of the type of controller transaction that can potentially harm minorities. Across the world there are different approaches to balancing the concerns associated with protecting minorities and concerns with not preventing value enhancing  freeze outs. These responses range from those relying on fairly simple rules (e.g., the mandatory bid), to voting by minorities, to more full‐scale court supervision and intervention. In India the protection for minorities in freezeouts is fairly weak by global standards and there is a strong case that can be made for enhancing protection. 

 The key  problem is which solution to pursue given the ground realities and institutional challenges in India. We are generally not enamored by approaches that rely for their effectiveness on quick and expert resolution through the courts. Instead, we consider some mix of greater regulatory supervision combined with voting or other protections to be most desirable in the Indian context. In this article we have sketched out a preliminary approach to addressing the concerns raised by freezeouts in India. There are a number of refinements that can be envisioned to enhance the balance between minority protection and encouraging value enhancing freezeouts, but we leave that for future work.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. Avtar Singh, Companies act 2013, 16th edition, eastern book company

2. S. R. Myneni, company law, 1st edition, Asia law house

ARTICLES

1. tanvi kini, "An Overview of Squeezing out of Minority under the Companies Act, 2013 Vis -à-Vis the Position in International Jurisdictions", 2nd August (https://www.legalindia.com/overview-squeezing-minority-companies-act-2013-vis-vis-position-international-jurisdictions/ )

2. vikramaditya khanna, "regulating squeeze out in india: a compartive perspective", july 2014, National I=University of Singapore

3. khaitan & co, "minority squeeze out", september 2014

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

[1] vikramaditya khanna, "regulating squeeze out in india: a compartive perspective", july 2014

[2] See WILLIAM T. ALLEN, REINIER KRAAKMAN & GUHAN SUBRAMANIAN, COMMENTARIES AND CASES ON THE LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION 496 – 97 (4TH ED., 2012).

[3]  Corporate and securities legislation in different jurisdictions permit (conditionally) or regulate one or more of these forms of squeeze outs.

 

[4]  Such an acquisition of full control of the company may either follow as a sequel to a takeover offer by an acquirer who has recently acquired control or may be undertaken on a stand-alone basis by a long-standing controller.

 

[5] tanvi kini, "An Overview of Squeezing out of Minority under the Companies Act, 2013 Vis -à-Vis the Position in International Jurisdictions", 2nd August

 

[6] Although the usual sequence is a delisting followed by a squeeze out, that need not always be the case. Often, controllers also decide to launch a squeeze out when the company is listed, whereby delisting of the company’s securities becomes a natural consequence of the squeeze out. In such a scenario, SEBI would have complete oversight over the squeeze out process.

[7] Delisting Regulations, §8(b). This would ensure that the controllers are not in a position to steamroll the minorities, whose substantial support will be required for the delisting.

[8] Companies Act, 2013, §235; Companies Act, 1956, §395. In this article, while the expression “squeeze out” refers generally to include all types of transactions whereby the minority’s shares are forcibly acquired by the target or the controller, the expression “compulsory acquisition” refers to the specific types of transactions contemplated by these specific sections of the Companies Act. This distinction, however, is made solely for convenience and does not denote any technical terminology or an indication of the market practice.

[9] See supra note 57 and accompanying text, observing that in such cases courts would generally look at the fairness of the process and price.

[10] For example, in Miheer Mafatlal, supra note 63, the Supreme Court referred to Pennington’s ‘Principles of Company Law’ to indicate that methods such as the earnings per share method, the net worth or breakup value

[11] khaitan & co, "minority squeeze out", september 2014

[12] khaitan & co, "minority squeeze out", september 2014

 

[14] See Varottil, supra note 10, at 49.

[15] squeezing out minority shareholders, a recent judgement, may 6 2009

[16] tax insights, "cadbury minority buyout approved", 8th august 2014

---