CLD 2018

2018 PLP 101 (CLD)

TPL TRAKKER LIMITED — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PRPD), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Decided Date
2017-October-17
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2018 PLP 101 (CLD)
Forum / Court Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Bench Members N/A
Parties TPL TRAKKER LIMITED — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PRPD), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD — Respondent
Primary Law Securities Act (III of 2015)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 101 (CLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Securities Act (III of 2015) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 101 (CLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 101 (CLD) (TPL TRAKKER LIMITED — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PRPD), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Securities Act (III of 2015)

Representation

  • Muhammad Farooq Bhatti, Additional Director (SMD), Asif Khan, Deputy Director (SMD) and Moeed Hassan, Assistant Director (PRPD) for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 109(1)(h)(iv)

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33

Acquisition of an insurance company by another company

Claim for exemption from applicability of Part IX (Takeovers) of the Securities Act, 2015

Scope

Assistant Director, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, vide impugned letter communicated to the company acquiring the target company that proposed acquisition was not exempted from the applicability of Part IX (Takeovers) of the Securities Act, 2015

Appellant with 24.4% shareholding and another company with 69% shareholding were the major shareholders of the target company and had control

Prior to that appellant had majority shares of 67.4% and control of the said company

Appellant had applied for exemption of Part IX (Takeover) of the target company being a major shareholder under S.109(1)(h)(iv) of Securities Act, 2015

Spirit of S.109(1)(h)(iv) of the Securities Act, 2015 was to avoid any hasty takeover detrimental to the existence and interest of target company

Prior to 9-1-2015, the appellant had been controlling the management of the target company, independently and since that date, it had collective control as a major shareholder

Acquisition of target company would not amount to hasty takeover and it would not harm the interest of the company

Appellant company having control of the target company for more than three years, no reason lay to bar the appellant from acquiring the shares of target company

Appeal was allowed and impugned letter was set aside, with the direction to the appellant to meet the prescribed free float requirement of target company within reasonable time.

Judgment & Decree

TAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CCD-CLD).

This Order shall dispose of Appeal No.97 of 2017, registered on 06/10/17 (the Appeal), under section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 (the Act) against the letter dated 22/09/17 (the Impugned Letter) issued by the Respondent whereby it was communicated that the proposed acquisition of TPL Direct Insurance Limited (TPL Insurance) by TPL Trakker Limited (the Appellant) is not exempted from the applicability of part IX (Takeovers) of the Securities Act, 2015 (the Act).

2. Brief facts of the case are that Next Capital Limited vide a letter dated August 24, 2017 (the Letter) asked the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (the Commission) to confirm the exemption from part IX (Takeovers) of the Act for acquisition of shares of TPL Insurance by the Appellant. The Respondent vide the Impugned Letter communicated that the proposed acquisition of TPL Insurance by the Appellant is not exempted from the applicability of part IX (Takeovers) of the Act. As per record, the Appellant with 24.4% shareholding and Greenoaks Global Holdings with 69.1% shareholding are the major shareholders of the TPL Insurance and had control since January 09, 2015. Prior to January 09, 2015, the Appellant had majority shares of 67.4% and control of the TPL Insurance. In view of the above facts the Appellant had applied for exemption of part IX (Takeovers) of the Act being a major shareholder under section 109(1)(h)(iv) of the Act which exclude those transactions where shares are transferred amongst major shareholders who have been collectively exercising management control of target company for continuous period of three years prior to the proposed acquisition. The relevant part of the provision is reproduced below for reference; "Section

109. This Part not to apply to certain transactions. (1) Except as provided otherwise in subsection (2), nothing contained in this Part shall apply to (h) acquisition pursuant to inter se transfer of shares amongst qualifying persons, being, (iv) major shareholders of a target company collectively exercising management control for a continuous period of three years prior to the proposed acquisition:"

3. The Appellant has preferred this appeal inter alia on the grounds that the Impugned Letter had failed to assign any reason for refusal to grant exemption to the Appellant. The Respondent has failed to consider that the Appellant was qualified and entitled for exemption under section 109(1)(h)(iv) of the Act and the Appellant and Greenoaks have equal representation in the board of TPL Insurance and prior to 2015, the Appellant had more than 51% shareholding in TPL Insurance. Furthermore, the Impugned Letter has failed to consider that current free float of the TPL Insurance is not as per PSX requirements and in case of acquisition of shares via public offer by the Appellant, the free float of the TPL Insurance would further reduce and subsequently the Appellant will need to sell the acquired shares to public.

4. The Respondent has rebutted the grounds of appeal and stated that exemption of part IX (Takeovers) of the Act cannot be granted to the Appellant being a major shareholder under section 109(1)(h)(iv) of the Act because it only exclude those transactions where shares are transferred amongst major shareholders, who have been collectively exercising management control of target company for continuous period of three years prior to the proposed acquisition.

5. The Appellate Bench (the Bench) has heard the parties (Appellant and Respondent) and perused the record. Admittedly, prior to January 09, 2015, the Appellant had majority shares of 67.4% and control of the TPL Insurance. Whereas, since January 09, 2015 the Appellant and Greenoaks Global Holdings have 24.4% and 69.1% shareholding respectively, in the TPL, Insurance and being major shareholders both have equal representation and control on the board of TPL Insurance. In view of the requirement of section 109(1)(h)(iv) of the Act major shareholders are required to have collective management control of target company (TPL Insurance) for continuous period of three years prior to the proposed acquisition. In present case the Appellant and Greenoaks Global Holdings have collective control since January 09, 2015, meaning thereby to meet the required threshold of three years, apparently, the Appellant has to wait till January 09, 2018.

6. We believe that the spirit of section 109(1)(h)(iv) of the Act is to avoid any hasty takeover detrimental to the existence and interest of target company. As a matter of fact, prior to January 09, 2015 the Appellant had been controlling the management of the TPL Insurance independently and since January 09, 2015 it has collective control as a major shareholder. Therefore acquisition of TPL Insurance shares from Greenoaks Global Holdings would not amount to hasty takeover and it would not harm the interest of TPL Insurance.

7. The Bench believes that in view the spirit of law, the Appellant has control of the TPL Insurance for more than three years, therefore, we do not see any reason to bar the Appellant from acquiring the shares of TPL Insurance from Greenoaks Global Holdings. Therefore, in the above circumstances, we hereby allow this Appeal and set aside the Impugned Letter. Furthermore, we also direct the Appellant to meet the prescribed free float requirement of TPL Insurance within reasonable time.

8. Parties to bear their own cost. HBT/38/SEC Appeal allowed.