Buyout as a Relief in Oppression and MismanagementProceedings
Abstract:
The Companies Act, 2013, in Chapter Sixteen hascodified the provisions which relate to the prevention of oppression and mismanagement in companies.This codification has essentially helped in ensuring that the interests of the stakeholders in the management of the company are safeguarded. While Chapter Sixteen contains various provisions which outline the kinds of relief that can be sought by stakeholders and granted by tribunals, the scope of the present paper is only limited to analysing one such relief in detail, that is, the buyout remedy and basis on which a member’s shares are valued by Courts while granting the said remedy.
Table Of Contents
II. THE CONCEPT OF A BUYOUT REMEDY 2
III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ‘BUYOUT ORDERS’ 2
IV. VALUATION OF SHARES WHILE GIVING ‘BUYOUT’ RELIEFS 4
A. APPROACH OF ENGLISH COURTS 4
B. APPROACH OF INDIAN COURTS 5
V. CONCLUDING ON A SUGGESTIVE NOTE 7
- Introduction
One main and important question that came up in events connecting to maltreatment and despotism is whether the abolishment of particular groups would authorise the firm to continue operating efficiently. Having established this, the next query that demands to be spoken about is, whether an order is in need of such groups to exit the business is reasonable and unbiased. The buyout method is a way which is used by Tribunals to conclude upon the aforementioned issues. Against this set scene, through this written paper, I aim to inform the reader of the concept and importance of ‘buyout’ orders, and the features which aid the Tribunal in declaring its final judgement.
For the purpose of concision, initially, this writing does not address any other areas of shareholders who may be instructed to exit the Company through a buyout order. In other words, this material undertakes the concept that the ‘buyout’ orders only need the minority shareholders to exit the Company. Secondly, the determined models of valuation to determine the equitable price of shares have been prohibited from the present investigation, as the same would have demanded the discussion of several business models and implementations which are out of the scope of the present article.
In order implement so, I begin in Part II by notifying the reader of the article of a ‘buyout remedy’in the first place. In Part III, I tell the reader of the consequence of such buyout orders. More importantly, I notify the reader of the reasons such ‘buyout’ orders and the concluding intention achieved by them. In Part IV, I direct a comparative analysis of Indian and English Courts to finalise how such Courts have evaluated the shares of Companies while distributing ‘buyout reliefs’. I conclude in Part V by claiming that there is an expanding need to integrate “exit rights” for minority shareholders in the Articles of the Company. Apart from this, the shareholder concurrence, which can go a long way in decreasing the amount of maltreatment and abusive activities before the Tribunals.
- The IDEA of a Buyout Remedy
The Companies Act, 2013, Section 241 helps the members of the Company to address a affliction of persecution and maltreatment before the Tribunal. Section 242 of the Act permits the Tribunal, the strength to bring an end to these cases for which a complaint has been stated under Section 241. Section 242 issues for such a relief which, includes an order furnished by the Tribunal which authorizes the buyout of shares or interests where one section of members of the Company buys from another section of members of the Company. This is necessarily a ‘buyout’ order declared by the Tribunal. The idea of a ‘buyout’ process is intrinsically large and unlimited under Indian law and also under English law. This basically means that there are no protection in place which initiates this power of the Tribunal in inspection. The Tribunal is important to create a valued outcome in establishing the occurrences where these orders should be implemented, who should leave the company, who should purchase the shares, and what should be the declared costing at which the shares must be bought.
- The IMPORTANCE of ‘Buyout Orders’
As per the above discussion ,a ‘buyout’ order is announced by a Tribunal when it perceives that the withdrawal of one or more than one groups from the firm would assisst such business to operate evenly and competently. This authority, however, is not fully uncertificated. This is primarily for the following two reasons : Firstly, before providing a ‘buyout’ declaration, a Tribunal will have to be contented that the reality and situations of the case. They also need a ‘buyout’ order to be furnished. Secondly, the declaration by the Tribunal should be one which is fair and unbiased.
Any ‘buyout’ statement issued by a Tribunal is of major importance for a Company. The reason behind this is that it primarily creates a win-win circumstance for the stakeholders involved. For example, let us take an instance where the firm has entered a standstill situation due to situations like ill treatment and misutilisation. In such a case, any shareholder who is discontented by such misusage would not want to stay “deadlocked” in a business whose administration has gone into a standstill. However, a shareholder like this would require to take out his/her investment from the firm provided his/her shares are justifiably priced. The administration would need the deadlock to be solved at the earliest. If that is not done, it may initiate a situation where the business has to shut down completely.
Under the instances importantly mentioned in the above paragraph, a ‘buyout’ declaration attains a win-win position in the following ways— First, it makes the resentful shareholders to bring out their invested money from the firm at a price marked under the authorisation of the Tribunal.Second, it ends the standstill amongst the two groups of shareholders by needing a particular section to leave the business. After the completion of this, it resolves the locked in situation of the authority of the Company. As a result, saves it from the chances of shutting down.
This is the reason behind this major significance linked to a ‘buyout’ statement, that the Supreme Court of India has sanctioned a Tribunal to furnish a ‘buyout’ relief even in the non-appearance of any evidence of maltreatment and misuse. The cause behind this decision of the Supreme Court is to be watched for. The Supreme Court’s discretion are conceptualised on the belief that a ‘buyout’ declaration should have the strength to solve any case or complaint which has been brought to the attention of the Tribunal under Section 241. Hence, even in incidents where maltreatment may not be proved, a ‘buyout’ solution may be stated by the Tribunal. Such a solution has the power of resolving the complaints of the annoyed members of the firm under Section 241 of the Act. These cases can be demonstrated with the help of the following cases:
As an example, we can study the case of Modern Furnishers, . There were two groups in the firm and both the parties were equally strong. When a true conflicting differences rise up between the two groups, it resulted in a standstill position within the authority of the Company. As a result, a situation occurs, where no group could persecute the other. Therefore, even with the absence of ill-treatment, the Company was in a deadlock.
Same way, if we see the case of MSDC Radharamanan, there were two directors on the Board. This necesarilly meant that these groups in the firm enjoyed equal positions. However, dueto the personal links of the two directors which became worse as days passed by, differences increased between the two. This had a direct result on the authority of the firm which initiated a deadlock because of the absence of understanding between the two groups. Here again, one group could not oppress the other. However, despite the absence of any maltreatment, the business entered a deadlock.
Thus, it is quite possible that the exit of a certain group of shareholders may get profit from the firm even when these shareholders have not been ill treated. These exits might be as a result of various features ranging from the “loss of mutual trust and confidence amongst the parties” to “illegalities performed by the group for personal gains”. As an outcome ‘buyout’ solutions are tremendously important for the best interests of the business, and the Supreme Court, has taken a step towards the correct legislation by not prohibiting ‘buyout’ reliefs to only cases where misuse has been proved.
- Valuation of shares while giving ‘buyout’ SOLUTIONS
As mentioned in Part III, the strength of a Tribunal to provide a ‘buyout’ order, even if it is lengthy, is not unjustified. The initial term for issuing such a solution was that the Tribunal should be contented that a ‘buyout’ stated would solve the deadlock in the authority. It will also enable the firm to operate smoothly and productively.The circumstances which would help the Tribunal in such a strategy have already been discussed in Part III. Next we come to the second criteria, it is necessary that such a ‘buyout’ statement should be fair and equitable. This arises the discussion on the ‘value’ at which the shares of the ‘leaving’ shareholders must be bought. In general, such costing would entirely depend on the date of costing and the means used for such valuation. However, before critically examining the principles of valuation in detail, it may be mentioned at the beginning that written under both English Law, and Indian Law, the respective legislatures do not present any recommendations which can help in fixing either the date or the base of such valuation. In spite of the absence of statutory assistance, both Indian and English Courts have analysed these ongoing issue. A comparative criticism of the suggestion taken by Indian and English Courts has been done henceforth.
A. APPROACH OF ENGLISH COURTS
The general norm, as per the English Law, is to purchase the shares at a “fair costing”. However, the term “fair” has been stated in different ways on different occasions, depending on the certainty and circumstances of that actual case. Any straight forward assessment or method has not yet been established for valuing the shares of company. This neccessarily means that several companies may look up to to different ways of valuation. This system again depends on the market pressures, or other secondary circumstances at some specific time. Some of the methods which are generally used for valuations have been explained as follows.
In cases where shares of a public firm are to be valued, the market value of these shares could be an initiating point. At times the value of tangible and intangible properties is also taken into consideration to assess the total asset value of the shares. Other ways are the, the capitalised earning method and discounted cash flow method. The Capitalised earning method, for example, is primarily used for profitable and fortunate business deals. It basically involves the distribution of the total income by an approximate ratio with some adjustments. Similarly, the valuation of a Company’s shares may be done by differentiating their value with the functioning of the other Company from the same industry.
English Courts have also come up with additional procedures of valuing the shares of a Company. For example, when the Court needs to value the shares of a firm in a biased preconception, it includes destruction in the final price as fixed. This is against the scene of the general necessity of a ‘buyout’ statement to be fair and impartial. If the Courts were not to include the harmful acts in the value of the shares of the minority in an partial preconception petition, it would possibly lead to a position where such shareholders may be pressurized to leave the Company at undervalue. This is inexcusable as the Court is under the duty to make sure that shares are priced in a way which rectifies the unjust prejudice which has caused the shareholders to leave.
Since the resolution of the specific way that is the most efficient and suitable in valuing the shares of a Company would need more discussion on business methods and practices in the industry, such calculation has been left out from the area of the present analysis.
After discussing the various processes of valuing the shares of a Company, I now talk about the date of valuation of these shares. The general rule in relation to the date of valuation under English law is that the beginning date of the petition was considered to be the date on which that purchase had been ordered. This rule, nevertheless, came with two restrictions. First, the business needed to be a “going concern”. Second, this rule was an issue to the demand of “fairness” in the evaluation of the shares.
The deviation to this point was summarised in the case of Profinance Trust. Demonstratively, if a company has experienced reconstruction; or if it has been impoverished from its pattern of operation; or if the firm’s business modus operandi has shifted; or if the Company has turned into a new establishment in substance as differentiated to its initial form; under such situations, it would be more suitable to price the shares at its beginning date than the one on which the petition was placed. These are nevertheless, only explanatory exceptions to the general directive and the true valuation would ultimately depend in the long run, upon the contentment of the Court, which, in turn, is established on the facts and conditions of each case, and the working mode of the parties at that point of time.
Having talked through the proceedings of the English Courts, a crucial point of withdrawal here would be to realize the position of law and the system of the Tribunals in India.
B. VIEWPOINT OF INDIAN COURTS
In contrast to the English Courts, the proceedings of the Tribunals in India is a little different. While, largely, the rule in India too, is that, the date of estimation should be the date on which the petition is presented, the Courts and tribunals in India will put costing of the shares on a date which is “most proximate in time” to the date of the placement of the said petition. Thus, in India, more significance is given to ‘impartiality’ and ‘equity’ as in contrast to English Courts. This has been demostrated below:
For example, if we study the case of Atmaram Modi, the Company Law Board had a talk on this issue in details and concluded that an initial date for estimating the shares of a business would not be an option merely because it was benefitting at that time and afterwards it began to suffer losses later because of the ‘parting ‘member’. The CLB would closely analyse and select an earlier or later time depending upon the course of action of true events which affect the share costing of a Company, such as proper issue after presenting the petition etc, so as to be as impartial and unbiased as possible.
This code of conduct was similarly followed in the case of Nikhil Rubberswhere the actual date of costing was the date of the balance sheet. This was nearest to the date of the filing of the petition. Nevertheless, as the matter continued, it was seen that the firm had stopped maintaining its balance sheets after certain point of time. Seeing such development, the Court ordered the valuer to fix the date of valuation to the time of the balance sheet of the earlier year. However, the Court certified this estimation by ordering that if any circumstances which took place after the balance sheet of the earlier year, were brought forward, the valuation of the shares would convert accordingly so as to come at a fair and unbiased conclusion.
The other area of the Indian code of conduct is the appointment of a self-standing professional to operate the valuation procedure. This session could be operated by the Court itself. Moreover, in certain state of affairs, such independent worker may be arranged by mutual agreement of both the groups. During the process of estimation by a self-standing professional, either of the sides are free to protest to the valuer on issues that affect the costing of their shares. Generally, the parties do not contradict the report of the independent worker or valuer unless there are justifications like cheating, misrepresentation are noticed.
There lies yet a different irregularity to the rule of costing by an independent worker which has been ingeniously carved out by the Indian Courts. When we understand or feel that the valuation by an independent woker may not be able to remunerate the ‘exiting’ members/shareholders in an impartial and equitable method, the Court can take up the process of ‘competitive bidding’ . This modus operandi is proved to be innovative and has been appointed by the Indian courts on two similar cases.
Let us first study the case of Namtech Consultants. After the dispute, there were two groups of equally strong shareholders. The Court felt that the ‘parting’ group would have to be paid back in an adequate and unbiased manner, so that it could begin its own journey after its exit from Namtech. As because both the parties were similarly powerful, hence, to achieve justice in the valuation of the shares, the Court ordered both the groups to do the following:
- Quote (in sealed covers) the cost at which they would want to sell their shares to the other group
- Quote (in sealed covers ) the cost at which they would be want to purchase the shares from the other group
As per the process adopted by the Court, the party which quoted the inflated price got the first option to purchase the rival group’s shares at the quoted higher price.
In the case of SAF YEAST, the ‘buyout’ order was also given in a similar manner. The Court, once reiterated with an original device to ensure impartiality in the valuation of the shares of the ‘parting’ members. As such, the Court raised the two competing groups of shareholders against each other in a bidding for 100% shares of the Company. The group which offered the largest amount of cash would be sanctioned to purchase the same and they would receive commendation for their own shares.
Therefore, the Indian style of valuation of shares is much more stronger than the approach of the English Courts. This guarantees that the ‘leaving’ shareholders and members are equitably and sufficiently remunerated so that they can begin their independent proceedings after such retirement from the Company.
V. Concluding on a suggestive note
All over the course of this paper presented, I have seeked to intimate the reader of the increasing importance of ‘buyout’ instructions for the interests of every stakeholders in a firm. I have also tried to inform the reader of the ways which have been generally assumed in sequence to value the shares of a Company in India, such as, low pricing, and the nomination of an independent professional. Inrelation to the date of valuation, I have tried to inform the reader with a comparative thought which only strengthens the final objective of the Court to provide a unprejudiced and unbiased method to the shareholders.
It is adequately clear that a shareholder’s departure from a business involves an inescapable and prolonged legal process. While this operation cannot be completely avoided, it can surely be shortened, by the externalization of ‘exit clauses’ in the Articles of Association of a firm or the shareholder agreements. These ‘exit conditions’ could confer upon specialised rights in the ‘exiting shareholders’ so that their retirement is unanimously negotiated arranged the unavoidably to retreat to an extended legal procedure. As a consequence, this could also bring down the pressure of attachment with Indian Courts and Tribunals, thus creating them more systematic than the earlier times.
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening