We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
02 April 2019
The stock market's flexibility is its greatest selling point for publicly traded companies, as it allows a fast flow of capital while still enabling majority shareholders to implement fundamental corporate changes should they wish to exit the market.
However, even with all of this flexibility, shares may not always be free of other encumbrances, defences or liens, and the sale of such shares may be opposed by the interested parties or even refused to be recognised as a genuine sale by the Trade Registry. This is especially troublesome when shareholders aim to regain full ownership of the company.
So how can a majority shareholder exit the stock market when dealing with encumbered minority stock? Would a squeeze-out procedure succeed, or will it be deemed to defraud secured creditors? Most importantly, how may a majority shareholder regain full ownership over its company once again?
In January 2018 the majority shareholder of a foreign-owned joint-stock company, which was headquartered in Romania and listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange, initiated a tender offer to purchase all minority shares in accordance with capital markets laws. The shareholder aimed to:
However, following the tender offer, the shareholder failed to acquire the remaining stock and had to initiate a squeeze-out procedure so that it could become the sole shareholder of the company.
Despite the shareholder exercising its rights under the Romanian Companies Law (31/1990), the Trade Registry refused to recognise the squeeze-out procedure and register the shareholder as the sole owner of the company. It argued that if it was to recognise the squeeze-out and record the stock transfer it would affect the creditors' rights, as all the minority shares were encumbered in favour of various creditors.
The shareholder immediately filed a complaint against the Trade Registry with the Bucharest Court. Besides the shareholder's will to regain ownership of its company, there was also the fear that as long as the Trade Registry refused to recognise the share transfer, the company would risk the severe penalty of winding up at the request on an interested party within the next nine months as, after the squeeze-out, it became a joint-stock company with only one shareholder – a clear violation of the Companies Law.
Following two hearings and supportive documentation being filed, the Trade Registry dismissed the request for registration of the share transfer, arguing that the existence of previously registered garnishments over the target shares prevented a valid transfer of the shares, despite the unfolding of a delisting process clearly regulated by the capital markets laws. In its response to the majority shareholder, the Trade Registry argued that if it were to recognise the squeeze-out and record the stock transfer, it would affect the creditors' indemnities as such minority shares were encumbered in favour of creditors and the transaction was seen as putting such assets out of their reach.
The reasoning behind the dismissal resolution highlights the Trade Registry's unfamiliarity with and confusion regarding the squeeze-out procedure and its effects on the transfer of ownership, as well as the legislative void that exists relating to recognising such capital markets mechanisms.
As part of the legal defence against the Trade Registry's dismissal, the majority shareholder argued that:
Thus, the Trade Registry, being mainly a publicity instrument, has no power to review the legality of a squeeze-out procedure. Rather, it has only the obligation to record the transfer of ownership and make the related registration, regardless of the existence of any garnishments.
The Bucharest Court ruled in favour of the majority shareholder. The court emphasised the Trade Registry's duty to recognise the squeeze-out as a genuine sale and register the share transfer regardless of garnishments, since the transfer was made in accordance with the capital markets legislation.
The Trade Registry did not appeal the decision.
As this case shows, it appears that the Trade Registry's internal registration procedures are not fully aligned with the laws and regulations governing the stock market. The stock market legislation sometimes derogates from the general rules on the transfer of ownership rights and the establishment of garnishments over shares, and has specific mechanisms available to ensure fast-paced market transactions.
Garnishments on publicly traded stocks are subject to different publicity requirements that do not require registration with the Trade Registry and have no effect on the ownership transfer. Any pledge on financial instruments must be constituted according to the rules of the market on which they are traded. Thus, the general laws governing the stock market and the Capital Market Law (297/2004) in particular must be followed when establishing a pledge over publicly traded stock.
To conclude, when aiming to either regain full ownership of a publicly traded company, exit the stock market, convert the company into an LLC or envision an upstream merger where the legal regime for the minority shares is not entirely clear, it is best to consider allocating sufficient time and resources for the potential court proceedings against the Trade Registry.
For further information on this topic please contact Madalina Neagu or Iulia Caizer at Schoenherr by telephone (+40 21 319 67 90) or email (email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org). The Schoenherr Attorneys at Law website can be accessed at www.schoenherr.eu.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.