15 Compromise, Arrangement, Reconstruction, Amalgamation and Merger of Companies

Dr.Aparajita Bhatt

1.  Introduction

Mergers, amalgamations, acquisitions, compromises, arrangement or reconstruction are all different forms of corporate restructuring exercises in the corporate world. All these activities are governed by regulations in different countries. Corporate restructuring is a collective term for a variety of different business transactions. The companies are required to take approval from various regulatory authorities and adhere to various legal provisions. Considering various issues involved in the cross border mergers & acquisitions, it becomes tedious and difficult to get the approval under every regulation and under every Act. Corporate Restructuring in any form has become a mandatory activity if corporate houses have to survive. Corporate restructuring might results in change generally like change in share capital or capital structure, change of shareholders, change of control, removal of a minority, change of business, change of operating entities etc.

If a company has to grow, it has to necessarily restructure itself within its corporate lifetime. Such restructuring can be in the form of reorganization or reconstruction. Corporate restructuring can be either organic or inorganic. Restructuring or changes done within the organ of the company is the organic or internal restructuring. It can be either operational, financial or managerial. Whereas, restructuring or changes introduced with the help of external forces is known as inorganic or external restructuring. Compromises, arrangements, mergers, amalgamations or acquisitions are a form of inorganic corporate restructuring.

Announced mergers & acquisitions from 1999-20131

1. Meaning, Need and Scope of Corporate Restructuring

Corporate restructuring is basically a business decision. In the words of Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, “Corporate restructuring is one of the means that can be employed to meet the challenges and problems which confront business. The law should be slow to retard or impede the discretion of corporate enterprise to adapt itself to the needs of changing times and to meet the demands of increasing competition. The law as evolved in the area of mergers and amalgamations has recognized the importance of the Court not sitting as an appellate authority over the commercial wisdom of those who seek to restructure business.”2

It can be categorized under various heads, such as:

debt and capital restructuring

internal and external restructuring

organic and inorganic restructuring

Financial, organizational and operational restructuring

Various forms which a restructuring exercise may take are as under:

• Expansion which includes Mergers and acquisitions, tender offers, joint ventures
• Sell Offs which includes spin offs, split off, split ups, divestitures, equity carve outs
• Corporate Control which includes premium buy back, standstill agreements, anti-takeover amendments and proxy contests
• Changes in Ownership Structure through various exchange offers, share repurchase, going private and LBOs in few economies.

Fig. 1 Expansion

Corporate restructuring solves different purposes for different companies at different points of time. It may take up various forms such as merger, amalgamation, demerger, reverse merger, spin-off, LBOs and many more. The purpose of each of these restructuring activity is different but each one of them are targeted to rebuild or rearrange the corporate structure.

The reason to opt for a restructuring activity whether internal or external may differ from company to company depending on its size, valuation, business needs etc. The simple reasons for a company to restructuring itself through any of the medium mentioned above are as under:

• To concentrate on areas of core competencies or specialization
• To achieve economies of scale by expansion
• For geographical and product diversification by domestic and global markets.
• To achieve operational synergy and efficient allocation of managerial capabilities and infrastructure
• For the revival and rehabilitation of sick industrial units by adjusting losses of the sick unit with profits of a healthy company
• Vertical integration enables acquiring constant supply of raw materials and access to scientific research and technical knowhow
• To improve corporate performance to bring it at par with the competitors by taking advantage of each other.

The scope of Corporate Restructuring is huge and entails within itself all the benefits of restructuring such as synergy, economies of scale, profitability and improving efficiency. In this era of liberalization, privatization, globalization, and competition, survival and growth has become challenging for companies.

2. Meaning of Compromise, Arrangement, Merger and Amalgamation Compromise and Arrangement

The term arrangement has been given a wide scope under the Companies Act 2013. According to section 230 of the Companies Act 2013, an arrangement includes a reorganization of the company’s share capital by the consolidation of shares of different classes or by the division of shares into shares of different classes, or by both the methods.

The Act enunciates two possibilities of scheme of arrangement. They are (a) between a company and its creditors and (b) between a company and its members. Despite the tenuous difference, a scheme of arrangement with members (for amalgamation and mergers) is clearly distinguishable from a mere scheme of compromise with creditors. The primary difference between a compromise and an arrangement is that whereas an arrangement is between a company and its members or class of members, a compromise is between a company and its creditors or class of creditors. Another distinguishable feature is that in case of a compromise, there is an element of dispute present as it is done between a company and its creditors. But in case of an arrangement, there is no such element of dispute present

Merger

Merger is the combination of two or more companies into a single company where one survives and the others lose their corporate existence. The survivor acquires the assets as well as liabilities of the merged company or companies. Generally, the company which survives is the buyer which retains its identity and the seller company is extinguished. Merger is the fusion of two or more existing companies. The company whose assets & liabilities are transferred is known as the transferor company where as the company to whom those assets, liabilities are transferred is known as the transferee company. All assets, liabilities and stick of one company stand transferred to Transferee Company in consideration of payment in the form of equity shares or debentures or a mix of the two or three modes.

Fig. 5 Merger

Amalgamation

Generally, merger and amalgamation are considered to be synonymous with each other Amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking, the shareholders of each blending company becoming substantially the shareholders in the company which is to carry on the blended undertaking. There may be amalgamation either by transfer of two or more undertakings to a new company or by the transfer of one of more undertakings to an existing company”.

M.A. Weinberg defines the term “amalgamation” as an arrangement whereby the assets of two or more companies become vested in, or under the control of, one company which may or may not be one of the original two or more companies. The shareholding in the combined enterprise will be spread among the shareholders of the two or more original companies.

Fig. 6 Amalgamation

3. Mergers and Amalgamations under the Companies Act

Mergers and amalgamations have been dealt widely under the Companies Act 2013. Section 230-240 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“the Act”) provide us with a mechanism where in a scheme of arrangement may be entered into between a company, its creditors or and its members. The mechanism envisages a mandatory approval3 of the Tribunal which has replaced the High Court.4

Let us analyse the legal provisions under the Companies Act 2013:

3.1 Power to Compromise and make arrangements with Creditors and Members5

The power to compromise or make arrangements with creditors and members provided under section 230 of the Companies Act 2013 is a statutory power of the company conferred by the Companies Act. The section empowers the Tribunal to order a meeting of the creditors or members or their classes thereof, if an application has been filed by the company. The application can also be filed by the liquidator if the company is being wound up. The meeting is required to be called, held or conducted in such manner as the Tribunal directs. As the companies Act 2013 focuses on the principles of transparency, corporate democracy and accountability, there are certain procedural requirements to be followed by the company for this purpose. The company is required to disclose the following information to the Tribunal:

(a) all material facts relating to the company, such as the latest financial position of the company, the latest auditor’s report on the accounts of the company and the pendency of any investigation or proceedings against the company;

(b) reduction of share capital of the company, if any, included in the compromise or arrangement;

(c) any scheme of corporate debt restructuring consented to by not less than seventy-five per cent of the secured creditors in value

Another important requirement is that the notice of such meeting as proposed to be called under this section shall be sent individually to all the creditors or and the members and their classes thereof and also to the debenture-holders of the company.

These notices are required to be accompanied by a statement disclosing the details of the compromise or arrangement, a copy of the valuation report, if any, and explaining their effect on creditors, key managerial personnel, promoters and non-promoter members, and the debenture-holders and the effect of the compromise or arrangement on any material interests of the directors of the company or the debenture trustees. This requirement of sending individual notice is ensure more transparency and better corporate governance in the entire procedure.

Another step which has been mandated by the Companies Act 2013 is that such notice and other documents should be placed on the website of the company. If the company is a listed company, these documents shall also be notified to the Securities and Exchange Board and stock exchange where the securities of the companies are listed and shall also be published in newspapers in the prescribed manner.

The Companies Act 2013 allows voting to be done in person, through proxies as well as through postal ballot. Another important feature of the section is that any objection to the compromise or arrangement can be made only by persons holding not less than ten per cent of the shareholding or five percent of the outstanding debt as per the latest audited financial statement.

Another step towards strengthening transparency and accountability under the Companies Act 2013 which was not present in the previous Act is that notice along with all the documents is required to be sent all the regulatory authorities including the Central Government, the income-tax authorities, the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities and Exchange Board, the Registrar, the respective stock exchanges, the Official Liquidator, the Competition Commission of India and such other sectoral regulators or authorities which are likely to be affected by the compromise or arrangement. The purpose of this requirement is that merger or amalgamation of two or more companies affects the economy at large and therefore all the authorities and regulators must be given an opportunity to make representation. The time period of making a representation is within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice, failing which, it shall be presumed that they have no representations to make on the proposals. Although this step will make the process time consuming but it ensure the implementation of democratic principles in the corporate functioning.

The Tribunal has to consider the scheme of compromise or arrangement on various grounds such as whether it is just, fair, reasonable, not against public interest or against the interest of the minority. The Tribunal before sanctioning the scheme must ensure that majority of persons representing three-fourths in value of the creditors, or members or their classes thereof, voting in person or by proxy or by postal ballot have agreed to the scheme of compromise or arrangement. If such compromise or arrangement is sanctioned by the Tribunal by an order, the same shall be binding on the company, all the creditors, or members or their classes, or, in case of a company being wound up, on the liquidator and the contributories of the company. It shall have the same binding effect as the order of a High Court.

The Tribunal has to satisfy itself on various grounds before sanctioning the scheme. No scheme shall be sanctioned unless a certificate by the company’s auditor has been filed with the Tribunal to the effect that the accounting treatment is in conformity with the accounting standards.

The Act also specifies that any compromise or arrangement may include takeover offer made in the such prescribed manner, provided that in case of listed companies, takeover offer shall be as per the SEBI (Takeover Code) 2011.

Thus Section 230 of the Companies Act 2013 is very comprehensive and widely worded and covers almost every aspect of compromise or arrangement which includes mergers and amalgamations.

3.2 Power of Tribunal to enforce Compromise or Arrangement

Section 231 is a distinct provision and is similar to section 392 of the Companies Act 1956. The role of the Tribunal (earlier the High Court) is not only inquisitorial or supervisory role but also a pragmatic role which required forming of an independent judgement so as to ensure proper working of the scheme.

The legislative purpose behind conferring power of the widest amplitude on the High Court under sec 392 of the previous Act was not only to give directions but to make such modification in the compromise and/or arrangement as the court may consider necessary, the only limit on the power of the court being that such directions can be given and modifications can be made for the proper working of the compromise and/or arrangement. The purpose underlying this is to provide for the effective working of the compromise and/or arrangement.

The Tribunal similar to the High Court has the power to implement the order of compromise or arrangement. It may, at the time of making such order or at any time thereafter, give such directions in regard to any matter or make such modifications in the compromise or arrangement as it may consider necessary for the proper implementation of the compromise or arrangement.

The Tribunal has also been given power to order winding up of the company if it is satisfied that the compromise or arrangement sanctioned under section 230 cannot be implemented satisfactorily with or without modifications, and the company is unable to pay its debts as per the scheme. Such an order shall be deemed to be an order made under section 273.

3.3 Mergers and Amalgamations of Companies

The Companies Act for the first time explains the term and the procedure for merger and amalgamation. Section 232 facilitates and discusses clearly the procedure when two or more than two companies merge or amalgamate. It states that where an application is made to the Tribunal for the sanctioning of a compromise or an arrangement and it is shown to the Tribunal—

(a) that the compromise or arrangement has been proposed for the purposes of reconstruction of the company or companies involving merger or the amalgamation; and

(b) that under the scheme, the whole or any part of the undertaking, property or liabilities of the transferor company is required to be transferred to the transferee company.

On receiving such application, the Tribunal may order a meeting of the creditors or members or their classes separately, as the case may be, to be called, held and conducted in such manner as the Tribunal may direct.

The Tribunal, after being satisfied that all the statutory requirements have been complied with, may, by order, sanction the compromise or arrangement or by a subsequent order, make provision for the following matters, namely:—

(a) the transfer to the transferee company of the whole or any part of the undertaking, property or liabilities of the transferor company from a date to be determined by the parties unless the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, decides otherwise;

(b) the allotment or appropriation by the transferee company of any shares, debentures, policies or other like instruments in the company which, under the compromise or arrangement, are to be allotted or appropriated by that company to or for any person. As a result of compromise or arrangement, a transferee company shall not hold any shares in its own name or in the name of any trust whether on its behalf or on behalf of any of its subsidiary or associate companies and any such shares shall be cancelled or extinguished;

(c) the continuation by or against the transferee company of any legal proceedings pending by or against any transferor company on the date of transfer;

(d) dissolution, without winding-up, of any transferor company;

(e) the provision to be made for any persons who, within such time and in such manner as the Tribunal directs, dissent from the compromise or arrangement;

(f) where share capital is held by any non-resident shareholder under the foreign direct investment norms or guidelines specified by the Central Government or in accordance with any law for the time being in force, the allotment of shares of the transferee company to such shareholder shall be in the manner specified in the order;

(g) the transfer of the employees of the transferor company to the transferee company;

(h) where the transferor company is a listed company and the transferee company is an unlisted company, the transferee company shall remain an unlisted company until it becomes a listed company;

(i) where the transferor company is dissolved, the fee, if any, paid by the transferor company on its authorized capital shall be set-off against any fees payable by the transferee company on its authorized capital subsequent to the amalgamation; and

(j) such incidental, consequential and supplemental matters as are deemed necessary to secure that the merger or amalgamation is fully and effectively carried out.

Thus , from the appointed date which the Tribunal sanctions, the assets, liabilities and shareholders of the transferor company stands to be transferred to the transferee company.

Section 232 of the Companies Act 2013 is a facilitating provision similar to section 394 of the previous Companies Act, 1956

3.4 Merger or amalgamation of company with foreign company

This unique provision of the companies Act 2013 allows two way cross border merger unlike the previous Act of 1956, which allowed only a foreign company to merger with an Indian company and not vice-versa. Now, the new Act allows both an Indian company as well as a foreign company to merge with each other subject to the approval of the Reserve Bank of India.

It provides under section 234 that the Central Government may make rules, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, in connection with mergers and amalgamations provided under this section. It also states that Subject to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, a foreign company, may with the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India, merge into a company registered under this Act or vice versa and the terms and conditions of the scheme of merger may provide, among other things, for the payment of consideration to the shareholders of the merging company in cash, or in Depository Receipts, or partly in cash and partly in Depository Receipts, as the case may be, as per the scheme to be drawn up for the purpose.

A foreign company for the purpose of this section means any company or body corporate incorporated outside India whether having a place of business in India or not.

3.5 Power to acquire shares of dissenting shareholders

Section 235 provides for the power to acquire shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority. The section is analogous to section 395 of the previous Act. It states the following:

(i) where a scheme or contract involving the transfer of shares by the transferor company to the transferee company has, within four months after making of an offer in that behalf by the transferee company, been approved by the holders of not less than nine-tenths in value of the shares whose transfer is involved, other than shares already held at the date of the offer by, or by a nominee of the transferee company or its subsidiary companies, the transferee company may, at any time within two months after the expiry of the said four months, give notice in the prescribed manner to any dissenting shareholder that it desires to acquire his shares.

(2) On serving such a notice, the transferee company shall, unless on an application made by the dissenting shareholder to the Tribunal, within one month from the date on which the notice was given and the Tribunal thinks fit to order merger or amalgamation of company with foreign company otherwise, be entitled to and bound to acquire those shares on the terms on which, under the scheme or contract, the shares of the approving shareholders are to be transferred to the transferee company.

(3) Where a notice has been given by the transferee company and the Tribunal has not, on an application made by the dissenting shareholder, made an order to the contrary, the transferee company shall, on the expiry of one month from the date on which the notice has been given, or, if an application to the Tribunal by the dissenting shareholder is then pending, after that application has been disposed of, send a copy of the notice to the transferor company together with an instrument of transfer, to be executed on behalf of the shareholder by any person appointed by the transferor company and on its own behalf by the transferee company, and pay or transfer to the transferor company the amount or other consideration representing the price payable by the transferee company for the shares which, by virtue of this section, that company is entitled to acquire, and the transferor company shall—

(a) thereupon register the transferee company as the holder of those shares; and

(b) within one month of the date of such registration, inform the dissenting shareholders of the fact of such registration and of the receipt of the amount or other consideration representing the price payable to them by the transferee company.

3.6 Purchase of Minority Shareholding

The Companies Act 2013 also offers an option to purchase the minority shareholding under section 236 if otherwise the scheme has attained majority of ninety percent or more of the issued equity share capital of a company. In such the case, the acquirer or the transferee company is required to notify the company of their intention to buy the remaining equity shares. The price of the shares shall be determined on the basis of a fair valuation done by a registered valuer.

3.7 Power of Central Government to provide for amalgamation of companies in public interest

Subject to the satisfaction of the central government, Section 237 provides for amalgamation of two companies into a single company with such constitution, powers, rights, interests, authorities and priveleges and with such liabilities, duties and obligations, as may be specified in the order.

The order may also provide for continuation of legal proceedings by or against the transferee company of any legal proceedings pending by or against any transferor company and for such consequential, supplemental or incidental provisions as may be necessary to give effect to the amalgamation, in the opinion of the central government.

Every member, creditor and debenture holder of the transferor company before the amalgamation shall have the same interest in or rights against the transferee company as he had in the company of which he was originally a member, creditor or debenture holder.

Thus, Section 237 provides for a faster process of amalgamation of companies, provided vested under this section to the Central Government are all spelt out in this section. Readers will also note the redressal mechanism for the dissentient shareholder/creditor in case there is a reduction in his interest after the amalgamation as compared to what his interests were before. And the compensation to be paid (in case there is any reduction of interest), if considered inadequate, can be agitated to before Tribunal. The provision states that any person aggrieved by any assessment of compensation made by the prescribed authority may within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of such assessment prefer an appeal to the Tribunal and thereupon the assessment of compensation shall be made by the Tribunal. This section is similar to section 396 of the previous Act.

4.  Role of Judiciary

The Merger Provisions under the Companies Act constitute a comprehensive code in themselves, and under these provisions earlier the Courts and now the Tribunal has full power to sanction any alterations in the corporate structure of a company that may be necessary to effect the corporate restructuring that is proposed. The judiciary has very clearly laid out the parameters within which such schemes of arrangement may be initiated, approved by shareholders and creditors and then accorded the sanction of the court. Miheer Mafatlal and Hindustan Lever are landmark decisions of the Supreme Court in that behalf. Under the new Companies Act 2013, the High Court has been replaced by the Tribunal. But so far, Judiciary has played a pivotal role in the corporate restructuring activities in India as any scheme of arrangement or compromise falling under section 391-394 of the previous Act and now under the new provisions of the Act of 2013, essentially requires approval by the National Company Law Tribunal. The court/Tribunal has the following powers under the provisions of the Companies Act:

Power of the Court to sanction the Scheme

Power of the Court to stay proceedings

Power of the Court to reject or modify the scheme

Power of the Court to order winding up of the company or companies

In Saraswathi Industrial Syndicate v. CIT, Haryana6, the Supreme Court ruled that in an amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by one taking over the other. When two companies are merged and are so joined as to form a third company or one is absorbed into the other or blended with another the amalgamating company loses its identity. There may be amalgamation either by transfer of two or more undertakings to an existing company.

In the case of Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd7, the apex court gave a landmark decision and laid down the following principles:

The merits of the compromise or arrangement have to be judged by the parties who as sui juris with their open eyes and fully informed about the pros and cons of the scheme arrive at their own reasoned judgment and agree to be bound by such compromise compromise or arrangement or arrangement.

The court has neither the expertise nor the jurisdiction to delve deep into the commercial wisdom exercised by the creditors and members of the company who have ratified the scheme by the requisite requisite majority majority.

The court cannot, therefore, undertake the exercise of scrutinising the scheme placed for its sanction with a view to finding out whether a better scheme could have been adopted by the parties.

Principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd.8

That the provisions of the statute have been complied with.

That the class was fairly represented by those who attended the meeting and that the statutory majority are the meeting and that the statutory majority are acting bona fide.

That the arrangement is such as a man of business would reasonably approve.

There should not be any lack of good faith on the part of the majority.

Scheme not contrary to public interest or any other law.

Conclusion

The Companies Act 1956 was required to be replaced with a new legislation due to the changes in the needs of the corporate sector. The Act of 2013 is a broad and widely worded piece of legislation which ensures shareholders’ protection as well as growth of the company. It also introduces the concept of fast track mergers or out of court approach which used to be a very tedious and cumbersome exercise for the companies. This is a move to encourage small sized companies to restructure themselves via the merger route. The four pillars holding the foundation of the Companies Act 2013 are accountability, procedural simplification, disclosure and unification across various regulatory authorities. The simple process of submitting documents before the court registrar is now a multi-party affair with a series of documents. Corporate houses will now necessarily have to deal with multiple authorities – income tax, RBI, SEBI, central government and CCI – as opposed to single-window clearance.

There is a need to strike the right balance between proper regulation and over-regulation and adhere to the principles of corporate governance and corporate democracy.

References:-

1. The Companies Act 2013

2. Sridharan & Pandian, “Guide to Takeovers and Mergers”, Third Edition 2012, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur

3. K. R. Sampath, “Mergers/Amalgamations, Takeovers, Joint Ventures, LLPs and Corporate Restructure”, Seventh Edition, 2011, Snow white Publications, Mumbai

4. Dr. J.C. Verma, “Corporate Mergers Amalgamations and Takeovers”, Forth Edition, Bharat Publishing House, New Delhi

5. Ravindra Vadapalli, “ Mergers, Acquisitions and Business Valuation”, First Edition 2007, Excel Books, New Delhi

6. J Fred Weston & Samuel C Weaver, “ Mergers and Acquisitions- The Mc Graw Hill Executive MBA Series”, Seventh Edition 2011, Tata Mc Graw Hill, New Delhi