ARTICLE
22 April 2016

Australian Takeovers Panel Releases Reasons For Decision But Fails To Clarify Valuation Disclosure Obligations Of Target Company Directors

JD
Jones Day
Contributor
Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
Further to the Alert issued by Jones Day on 12 April 2016, the Australian Takeovers Panel ("Panel") released its Reasons for Decision in the Metro Mining Limited and Gulf Alumina Limited matter on 15 April, 2016.
Australia Corporate/Commercial Law
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Further to the Alert issued by Jones Day on 12 April 2016, the Australian Takeovers Panel ("Panel") released its Reasons for Decision ("Reasons") in the Metro Mining Limited and Gulf Alumina Limited matter on 15 April, 2016.

In the Reasons, the Panel confirms, with reference to its previous decisions in Tully Sugar Limited and Sirtex Medical Limited (these decisions were discussed in our initial Alert), that outside the prescribed circumstances in section 640 of the Corporations Act, and provided a target company's board is not otherwise "beholden to the bidder", target company directors do not need to obtain an independent expert's report to support undervalue statements they make to shareholders in a target's statement.

However, the Panel does not elaborate in the Reasons on the meaning and scope of its order for the directors of Metro Mining Limited to, in the absence of an independent expert's report, provide shareholders with valuation information "in a manner consistent with ASIC's Regulatory Guide 111".

Accordingly, the prospective uncertainty for target company directors identified in our Alert, and the potential tactical advantages that may be realised for bidders as a result of target company directors needing to provide more extensive valuation disclosure, is now very real. Target company directors are now left in the unenviable position of being unable to pinpoint precisely what is required of them in meeting their disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act in support of statements they make to shareholders about the target's value.

To ensure that directors are provided with clear guidance in complying with their valuation disclosure obligations, it would be useful for the Panel to issue an update to its Guidance Note 22 (Recommendations and Undervalue Statements).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

ARTICLE
22 April 2016

Australian Takeovers Panel Releases Reasons For Decision But Fails To Clarify Valuation Disclosure Obligations Of Target Company Directors

Australia Corporate/Commercial Law
Contributor
Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More