Bar&Bench News Network
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) passed an order on Wednesday asking Daichii Sankyo to increase its open offer price on Zenotech shares to Rs. 160 per share. Daiichi has been fighting a legal battle since January 2009 against Zenotech's shareholders.
In October 2007, Ranbaxy Laboratories acquired a 44.59 percent stake in Zenotech, which triggered the Takeover Code's open offer requirements. Ranbaxy acquired a further 2.20 percent in January 2008 through the open offer, at Rs. 160 per share.
On June 16, 2008 Daiichi made a public announcement to Ranbaxy's shareholders to acquire upto 22 percent of Ranbaxy's share capital. In October 2008, the deal was completed and Ranbaxy became a subsidiary of Daiichi. In keeping with Takeover Code regulations, Daiichi then made an open offer within three months of its acquisition of Ranbaxy, on January 19, 2009 to the shareholders of Zenotech, at a price of Rs. 113.62 per share, after calculating the weekly high and low of Zenotech's shares on the Bombay Stock Exchange in the 26 weeks prior to the public statement regarding acquisition of Ranbaxy shares. This methodology was challenged by the Jayaram Chirugupati, one of the Promoters of Zenotech. Jayaram filed a complaint before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which rejected the complaint, and the matter went on appeal before the SAT.
Senior Advocate S. Ravi, briefed by Vinay Chauhan, Litigation Partner at Corporate Law Chambers, argued on behalf of Jayaram that Ranbaxy, as a subsidiary of Daiichi, could be considered as a "person acting in concert", and Daiichi was therefore obliged to compute the open offer price at the same rate as the offer made by Ranbaxy i.e., Rs. 160 a share. It was also contended that Daiichi should have made an open offer for Zenotech's shares on the same date as the public announcement for Ranbaxy's shares.
Senior Advocates Iqbal Chagla and Janak Dwarkadas, appearing on behalf of Daiichi, argued that on June 16, the date on which Daiichi made a public offer for Ranbaxy's shares, Ranbaxy was not a subsidiary of Daiichi, and could not therefore be considered to be a "person acting in concert."
The SAT rejected this argument, stating that the date on which Daiichi's relationship to Ranbaxy should be considered was January 19, 2009, when Daiichi had made an open offer for Zenotech's shares. Consequently, Ranbaxy was considered to be a "person acting in concert", and since Ranbaxy's open offer to Zenotech's shareholders was at Rs. 160 per share on January 16, 2008, which was within the twenty-six weeks requirement stipulated by the Takeover Code for open offer prices on indirect acquisitions, the Tribunal held that Daiichi had wrongly computed the offer price, and directed Daiichi to modify its offer letter and offer Rs. 160 per share to Zenotech shareholders.
The other respondents in the case, SEBI and Ranbaxy, were represented by Kumar Desai and Senior Advocate H.S. Mattewal respectively. Mattewal was briefed by Senior Partner Anand Pathak of P&A Law Offices. P&A Law Offices had originally advised Daiichi in its acquisition of Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy's legal counsel for that transaction was Vaish Associates.
|
- 1. "Why do all decisions of SEBI get reversed the moment it comes up before SAT?". Anurag, Bangalore
- 2. "That is a really interesting question. SEBI/SAT Experts?". Vivek, Chennai
- 3. "SEBI claims that only 30% of the decisions are reversed by SAT. SEBI recently has hired some good legal team. Hopefully things should improve. But in the recent past, SEBi has erred on Pipavav IPO and a bunch of other decisions. ". SEBI Claims, Bombay
- 4. "sir/madam, i want to inform you that the ICORE COMPANY collect money from village to village just like rose valley.Have their permission to collecting monney from genaral public?plz tell me sir/madam. thanks®ards AMIT PRADHAN". AMIT PRADHAN, Egra
Related Stories
- Corporate Law Chambers opens capital market account with Emmbi Polyarns IPO
- Okaytatabyebye appeal WIPO order in Delhi High Court
- Harish Salve and Gagrat & Co obtain favorable order for Jet Airways; Pilots still strike
- Anand & Anand secure GI certificate for Tirumala Laddu
- Luthra continues headhunting as FoxMandal loses Corporate Practice head
- Vaish Associates align with Chinese-Singaporean Dacheng Central Chambers
- Legislation spree: UPA govt to moot bills for judges, corporate disputes, foreign universities and HIV/AIDS patients
Other News
- Significant amendments proposed to Consumer Protection Act; Online filing to be made permissible, fines for non-compliance enhanced
- ALMT Legal gets four new partners; Total partner strength increases to 18
- Clasis Law gets third new partner in as many months; Maritime law expert Harsh Pratap roped in to head Shipping practice
- Foreign Law Firms Case: Arguments concluded; Judgment reserved
- Conversation with Kartikeya Tanna: “What Vineet Narain and Justice Singhvi have done, Justice Ganguly has undone”
- NALSAR hit by another scandal; Committee finds NALSAR authorities guilty of gross abuse of power (Updated)
- AIBE Update: Results withheld due to Cal High Court injunction; BCI to approach Supreme Court
The Viewpoint - Market Structure and Competitive Bidding
Jan 31, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the seventh article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner J. Sagar Associates. JSA Partners Amit Kapur and Vishnu Sudarsan analyse the recent judgment of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in the Essar Power case which has clarified the position re. competitive procurement of power. comments (0)










